Sue Barnes

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, because of all the shenanigans that have gone on in the House over the last number of days, it is likely that as chair of the committee I will not get an opportunity to speak.

I will take this opportunity, having listened to the comments from the member opposite, to say how much I agree with them in most parts. I also thank not only the member's party and her personally for her work on this file, but members from the Bloc, members from the Conservative Party, members from our own party and all the people who worked very patiently and hard. I also second the fact that because negotiations took place over many, many years, a historical context surrounds this agreement that will long outlive noise and confusion.

I am very happy to be part of a real process that will change history in the country. I thank the hon. member for giving voice to some of the sentiments that many of us hold.

[Committees Of The House, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Pursuant to order of reference of Monday, November 1, 1999, your committee has studied Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement, and has agreed to report it without amendment.

[Child Labour, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

In June of this year, the general conference of the International Labour Organization unanimously adopted the Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour. This was to protect vulnerable children. Given Canada's human security agenda, I ask the minister today if Canada is planning to ratify this agreement. What are we going to do?

[Division No. 47, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was delayed on my aircraft. I would have loved to have voted with my government.

[Criminal Code, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this motion. I know the member for Yukon has worked very hard on raising the profile of this issue and adding to the very important debate in the House. She has also worked on talking to members across party lines about the need to get at the reality in a modern context in terms of a section of our current Criminal Code.

Going back in history is relevant to a discussion of this section of our code, which in essence had its history hundreds of years ago. It was based on a concept of honour at a time when men could treat women as property, at a time when men could defend the honour of their children having been molested, specifically sons being sexually assaulted. It has a historical context which in reality is not as relevant in today's society.

There is a modernization. When our Criminal Code was codified in 1892 this section was included. There has been discussion over the years. I believe this section should be looked at when we talk about the defences of provocation and self-defence. These two issues are linked in my mind.

Around 1998 the Minister of Justice had the Department of Justice start consultations across the land on this area of the law, this specific section. They are still ongoing. I believe that discussion is necessary. When I originally looked at this section I thought it was fairly black and white and tended to agree with the hon. member who presented the motion.

However, what I am hearing in my investigation is that some of the consultations are still ongoing and different groups are not reaching a consensus of opinion. In other words, a process is under way that will address some of these issues. I think that process has already shown—and I believe the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice would agree—that some of the criticisms enunciated in the House and levelled at this section would be valid criticisms.

A review of Hansard and the previous hour of debate on the motion would also find that there are other views that raise different arguments in relation to this section. The courts have been more likely to use this in a situation where instead of a man's ability for action, as in the argument of the hon. member, there is the passing of violence against an individual out of anger or frustration or a sense of honour that has been hurt in some way. It is now the opposite. It could be used more as a defence realistically when there is continuous provocation to such an extent that somebody loses actual control.

This is a complex area. It is not simple. It is certainly not black and white. At the end of the day this is an area in which I welcome constant and continuing vigilance. I would like to see some reform on this section. I would also like to see that reform come at a time when the consultation process has been completed and all various options have been put on the table for us to evaluate together. I would be supportive after hearing especially from the equality seeking groups across the land who are coming to the table and discussing this as the consultations go forward.

It is necessary that Canadians realize that just because something is old it is not automatically wrong. Something that has a lot of history can be looked at with an understanding that when we move to eradicate it, it could have repercussions or different ramifications in areas which have not yet been thought of. Some of the self-defence now is more likely for instances where women are responding in a loss of control to a situation where over a long period of time there has been assault by men against women in a household and someone loses control for a moment and acts out of anger. I could see that happening if anyone came across someone attacking a child of ours or a child of the community.

We should not excuse violence. We should never excuse violence, but I think there has to remain some flexibility of an understanding that human beings are fallible. I would certainly want a very high test level.

In our review of the cases in this section that in some cases the judge felt this defence was not available. It really is case dependent, factual dependent. It provides for a level of flexibility in our criminal law, but it is one of those areas where there is no excuse for violence. If we go from that position, I think there is a lot of value in laying this issue before us today.

I commend the hon. member for her work on the motion. I would look forward to a time where I could stand in the House and support a bill that would modernize this situation. Before I do so, as I say, in fairness to all potential situations I would want to have all options laid before me.

I urge those conducting the consultation process inside the Department of Justice that if it is being done at a pace which has not been as rapid as it could be, this motion gives some emphasis to pushing the process along so that we can come to a point within parliament where we can be looking at modernization of the particular section.

I do not wish to prolong this debate by repeating myself. I think I have laid where I stand clearly on the table. It is from a viewpoint of not trying to sit on the fence but just saying at this point in time I will not support the motion because I do not feel that the consultation process has been finished.

I am at this stage glad that there is one in place. I would like to hurry that process along so that at a future date within this session of parliament I would hope we could be looking at the issue and seeing at that stage where informed decision making should stand.

[World Press Freedom Day, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today is World Press Freedom Day. Established in 1993, this day serves as an occasion to recognize the extraordinary sacrifices made in the struggle for free expression.

This year's theme, violence against journalists, highlights a serious problem in many countries. Last year, 27 journalists were murdered in the course of their duties, among them the former editor of the Indo-Canadian Times . Journalists have faced arbitrary arrests, threats, aggression, harassment and even torture. Currently, at least 117 journalists are behind bars in 25 countries.

In Canada, freedom of the press is a right guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We sometimes take this freedom for granted, but we must never forget its importance to our democratic society.

Today we call on governments everywhere to respect their commitments to press freedom, and especially those who still deny their citizens access to a fully free press.

I salute the courage, integrity and commitment of all journalists.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-374, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff, would provide for a new criminal offence of selling to a minor or offering to sell in a place accessible to minors or to import any doll that comes with a label or packaging which urges any person to mistreat the doll, cause it to suffer injuries or degrading acts.

The hon. member's bill would further define doll as including a model of a troll or a model of an imaginary creature with a human shape.

The bill would create a summary conviction criminal offence with a maximum penalty of $25,000, six months in prison or both.

In essence, the hon. member's bill is aimed at a product which he believes, and I understand many of his very concerned constituents believe, desensitizes children to violence and fosters violent behaviour among children.

It is commendable that more and more people are now linking products that society offers and the environment that we have created to potential actions of our children and youth. For example, I think of our laws on gun control. I hope that more people start thinking of these connections.

I share the hon. member's concerns about the many depictions of violence in the media and other aspects of our lives. I recall when, as vice chair of the justice committee in the 35th Parliament, we actually tabled a report dealing with those very issues.

I must say that the criminal law is a very blunt instrument which carries harsh penalties and procedures. It should be employed to deal with conduct that causes or threatens to cause serious harm to individuals or society. However, it should only be used where other social control means are inadequate or inappropriate. I would suggest that neither are present to the degree necessary to create a new criminal sanction.

Does the hon. member opposite really suggest that fighting dolls represent a possible threat to individuals or society in a similar magnitude as the social and individual harm which is caused by drugs, theft, guns or violence against people? I think it is the relative situation here, although I understand the premise of what the hon. member is attempting to do.

Dolls such as the one the hon. member is concerned about are really just one aspect of a larger issue. Other forms of social control are perhaps more appropriate for helping our children deal with the images and the invitations to violence and aggression which these products sometimes suggest.

Children are daily exposed to depictions of violence in all forms in the mass media, from TV to movies to books. It is a serious component of many of the video games and websites that are now popular with children. Children's games sometimes revolve around fighting, chasing and killing.

Does the hon. member want the Criminal Code to make it a crime to have a G. I. Joe doll or to play cops and robbers? I am sure he does not. Parents make choices around those issues. I made choices with my children and I am sure that all of us should be making those choices. It is simply not reasonable to think that addressing the availability of one kind of doll will have an effect on children's tolerance and reaction to violence.

We need evidence that the inclusion of a label urging mistreatment may make some difference to a toy. Does it really affect the outcome? Can we prove this? Can we prove it to a criminal burden of proof? That is a little different. It is a high burden.

We know by observing children that they often damage their toys. This is activity which happens in homes and schoolyards. However, I wonder whether we want to relegate it to criminal activity. If we do then we have limited some of the freedoms we enjoy. There is freedom of speech even in commercial labelling. Any law which directly or indirectly regulates labels or packaging could violate some of the freedoms that are guaranteed by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That is one area. It is an area that in some ways we already overcome when the threat is serious enough. There could be those instances and there are many times when we should be acting. We certainly act when toy products affect physical safety. We have regulations to deal with those situations.

I have not seen the product described by the hon. member, but I am sure the message is rude. It is not something that most people in Canadian society would want to see. However, in this society we have freedom of choice in what we buy for our children. Dolls are usually bought by children, with their parents' money, under parental supervision. There are ways we can choose products for our children or limit choices, just as there are ways we can choose to let them watch any amount of TV and any programming or to limit those choices.

It is important that parents do these things because how we handle our children in the early years in our homes affects the outcome. I am certainly a supporter of more protection and social support for children, especially in the early years of life. However, even when there are parents in the home, I think there are safeguards and more resources we could use.

That is not what this bill is about. This bill is specifically about creating a new criminal offence. I think what we really have is not a criminal situation but a very important social situation that needs to be addressed.

In my home I sometimes hear music on compact discs which causes me to say “Get that out of here. I don't want to see you ever having this kind of trash”. I do trash some of those compact discs because they are not appropriate. They are more than rude. They use language and incite behaviour that is not found in Canadian values. That is the role of a parent and that is a role which we should support.

If there is criminal activity, then obviously the criminal law is appropriate. That is where there are violent actions. However, we are talking about a doll and the labelling on the doll. I think the concerns of the hon. member and his constituents are very well intentioned. I could certainly support doing something in this area.

There is a technical difficulty. The section in the Customs Tariff to which the member's bill applies no longer exists. However, there is another section that is comparable, so it could be corrected.

On balance, the criminal law is a very serious tool. Environmental and social controls and actual social resources do far more to address the problems for more people. A bill that narrows it down to one toy at one point in time will not fix the problem. It would certainly be a token acknowledgement that there is a problem in a lot of areas around certain products, but a lot of these products are still and will remain legal. They have some protections under charters when we get into some of the areas.

I commend the hon. member opposite for bringing this debate forward because I think it is worthy of an hour's debate. I do not think we should be going beyond that when our committees in the House have already deemed something not to be votable. I think that is the fair way and that all of us should play by the same rules.

This scenario does not reach a threshold where a criminal offence of such magnitude should be there, although I commend and see the logic which started this process.

[Heroin Prescription Trials, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a growing number of children are directly involved in armed conflict as deliberate targets and as child soldiers.

The record of the past decade is grim. Close to two million children have been killed in armed conflict; more than four million children disabled; over one million children orphaned; over 300,000 girls and boys serving in armies and rebel groups as fighters, cooks, porters, messengers, spies and labourers; 12 million children homeless; and over 10 million children psychologically scarred by the trauma of abduction, detention, sexual assault and witnessing the brutal murder of family members.

The situation of children in armed conflict is worse today than it was 50 years ago when the Declaration of Universal Human Rights was signed. Today 90% of the casualties of war are civilian, mostly women and children, whereas it was only 48% in the second world war and 5% in the first world war.

Children usually become soldiers through coercion, either through mandatory conscription or forced recruitment. Child soldiers overwhelmingly are recruited from the poorest and most marginalized sectors of society. Particularly vulnerable are children without families or with disrupted family backgrounds. Coercion aside, children may join the military for security, food or medical care. The military may offer children the only path to wages to support themselves or their families.

The use of children in armed conflict is global in nature. It is a far greater problem than suggested by the scant attention it has received. The use of child soldiers violates international norms.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, signed in 1989 and ratified by all but two nations, establishes 15 years as the minimum recruitment age. In fact, most countries have endorsed an optional protocol that boosts the minimum combat age to 18 years. However, in the face of armed conflict, military units in some nations, whether governmental or rebel, often pay little attention to age.

International silence about the abuse of children must change. The welfare of the world's children merits special priority in Canada's human security agenda.

Children are the most vulnerable group. The experience of children during their early years affects them for life. It will affect their families as well as their own future. We simply cannot afford to let the current situation continue if we value our own future.

In February the Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed the UN security council on the impact of conflict on civilians. He outlined Canada's approach to this very serious issue. In light of this, could the Minister of Foreign Affairs highlight what Canada is doing to protect civilians in armed conflict and in particular children?

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing body of evidence, most of it still anecdotal, that strongly suggests that marijuana has unique therapeutic properties in the treatment of several life and sense threatening diseases. For example, some people with multiple sclerosis believe that smoking marijuana helps them to control their spasticity. In certain instances the use of marijuana has helped to reduce nausea and stimulate the appetite of those living with HIV and AIDS.

Last year the board of directors of the Canadian AIDS Society passed a position statement on the medicinal use of smokable marijuana stating that people living with HIV-AIDS and their physicians should have access to marijuana for medicinal purposes in the treatment of these conditions.

There are indications that smoking marijuana can likewise reduce nausea and vomiting brought on by chemotherapy, principally among cancer patients. This is not simply a matter of comfort, as some cancer patients have had to cease treatment because the constant vomiting can make it impossible to continue taking the therapeutic drugs they need. Many chemotherapy patients complain that other anti-nausea drugs are ineffective and in some cases produce unwelcome side effects.

Marijuana is reputed to be helpful in the treatment of glaucoma through the reduction of intraocular pressure caused by fluid accumulation.

Other medical conditions or situations for which marijuana is reputed to have some effectiveness include an anti-convulsant action which may have an application in the treatment of epilepsy, and an analgesic action for pain relief. Marijuana cannot be said to cure any of these conditions but the potential exists with rational, medically supervised use to help alleviate pain and suffering. One recent report would term this belief based medicine. In Canada we strive for evidence based medicine.

The therapeutic products program, the regulator in Health Canada, has in place an expert advisory committee that since last year has been examining a number of issues relating to the medical uses of marijuana.

I am delighted that Canada will be among those jurisdictions to gather evidence in a safe and controlled manner so that our body of evidence can be evaluated along with that being done elsewhere.

In the U.K., GW Pharmaceuticals has been granted licences by the British Government to cultivate cannabis plants and to store and dispense the cannabis preparations for research. Initially it will develop standardized extracts of cannabis plants grown under controlled conditions. Research will also be concentrated on the best way to give the drug to patients and on which conditions it can safely treat.

They intend to proceed to clinical trials with a smokeless whole plant extract while also supplying marijuana to other investigators interested in medical research and pharmaceutical development.

Earlier this year the International Narcotics Control Board, which is responsible for the implementation of United Nations drug conventions, released its annual report for 1998. In the report the board called for unbiased research into the possible medical benefits of marijuana.

If the medical usefulness of marijuana is established, which I believe it will be, it would remain a drug no different from any other narcotic drugs. It would still be subject to licensing and other control measures according to international treaties, just like morphine and opiates.

Last month the American Institute of Medicine issued its report entitled “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base”. It declared that the medical use of marijuana may be one of the most effective treatments available for people with serious diseases such as AIDS and cancer.

This study, the product of more than 18 months of research, highlights continued concerns about marijuana but says it clearly controls some forms of pain, was not particularly addictive, and did not appear to be a gateway to harder drugs. The report also states that new research on the medical uses of marijuana should try to develop a non-smoked rapid onset delivery system to simulate the action of smoking marijuana.

To assist desperately ill patients who may not want to wait for a safe alternative to be developed, the report suggests doctors be allowed to launch clinical trials of marijuana, telling each test subject the benefits and risks of smoking it, including the negative impact of the smoke itself.

At the present moment a licit supply of medical research quality marijuana for clinical trials in Canada is potentially available and obtainable from the American National Institute on Drug Abuse. GW Pharmaceuticals may also be interested in performing some clinical trials with its developed alternate delivery systems outside its jurisdiction of Britain.

In Canada no scientific evidence that smoked marijuana has medicinal benefit has been submitted to the therapeutic products program. I believe very soon there will be a need for researchers to come forward and present proposals to study the benefits of the medicinal use of marijuana.

Under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act there is sufficient latitude to distribute marijuana without having to now change the law.

Under the CDSA the Minister of Health can enact regulations to authorize the possession, import, export and production of cannabis for medical purposes. Section 56 of the act states the following:

The Minister may, on such terms and conditions as the Minister deems necessary, exempt any person or class of persons or any controlled substance or precursor or any class thereof from the application of all or any of the provisions of this act or the regulations if, in the opinion of the Minister, the exemption is necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in the public interest.

Under the regulations of the CDSA, the minister also has the authority to authorize research on controlled substances. Together with others, specifically those in our social policy caucus at the time, I worked on the rework of the relevant bill in the 35th parliament. Hansard debates recorded this.

In the summer of 1997 I commissioned the Library of Parliament to prepare a report regarding the use of the new CDSA act and medicinal marijuana. This report was delivered to me in September 1997, at which time I provided it to our Minister of Justice and our Minister of Health.

I have pushed this matter very hard inside my government and since that time with these departments. I, with others, understand that even now there will not be overnight change; but let us not underestimate the progress made. The answer to my question to the Minister of Health on March 3 was a significant embarkment on a new policy direction for Canada.

There are drugs that contain THC, the active ingredient in cannabis, which have received therapeutic drug approval by Health Canada. These drugs went through the drug submission process, received a notice of compliance and then were granted drug identification numbers. The drugs can be sold legally in Canada pursuant to a prescription by a practitioner. Since the active ingredient in cannabis is already available for medicinal purposes in Canada, expanding its use may seem to be an appropriate development once we have the supportive research in hand.

At the present time in Canada there are two approved drugs that contain the active ingredients derived from the marijuana plants in pill form: Marinol and Cesamet. For many patients these synthetic versions of marijuana's active ingredients are expensive, unpalatable, and if they are trying to control nausea to be able to take oral medications they are ineffective oftentimes.

Smoking marijuana meanwhile appears to provide immediate relief of nausea and a stimulation of the appetite, allowing people to hold down both their pills and some food. There may be better mediums, for example inhalers, that reduce the negative side effects associated with smoking marijuana. These are still under development.

Currently some people who suffer from these diseases discussed above, for whom the legal medical options have proven ineffective or painful, have made choices. Some have obtained marijuana illegally in Canada and therefore risk suffering consequences such as arrest, fines, court costs, property forfeiture, incarceration, probation and criminal records.

Once evidence has been gathered the federal government will need to establish quickly an approach that would provide medical quality, licit marijuana so that people suffering from disease do not have to take further risks with their health by buying potentially impure, contaminated or chemically adulterated marijuana as is the case currently in Canada.

The concept of legalizing marijuana for medical purposes has been debated on and off in Canada for a number of years. I stress today that it is not the so-called legalization of a controlled substance that is the real issue. It is the legal access through the CDSA, which could be dealt with easily. In a recent court case in my riding, Regina v Clay and Prentice, Ontario Court Justice John McCart stated:

Parliament may wish to take a serious look at easing the restrictions that apply to the use of marijuana for the medical uses as outlined above as well as for alleviating some of the symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis, such as pain and muscle spasm. There appears to be no merit to the wide-spread claim that marijuana has no therapeutic value whatsoever.

It is a welcome step what we are doing. We need solid research efforts to commence soon. We also need to help set up a system so that those on trials are not open to criminal harassment. It is a matter of compassion. It is not fair to these people who have to fight both their disease and the law at the same time.

I applaud members on all sides of the House who have worked on this matter over the years. I think it is very important to recognize them. I also think it is important to recognize the Minister of Health who has taken this step forward at this time.

I want to also thank my constituents and those across Canada who have brought the poignancy and the tragedy of this issue to my attention. I am proud to be part of our government as we move forward on this issue.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague opposite that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was at the security council within the past month on a human security agenda. He was trying to get exactly this issue, the rights of civilians during this type of activity on the agenda.

I want to go back to the litany of shortcomings in equipment that I heard during the hon. member's speech.

The reality is that the places that are housing and caring for all the displaced people right now, Albania, Bosnia, Turkey and Croatia, all these places with hundreds of thousands of displaced people do not have a lot of resources. Indeed they have so few resources that the large volume of refugees in their areas could potentially destabilize their countries.

I want to ask the hon. member opposite what his view would be on Canada's participation, maybe not today but in the near future, after this goes, to help the economies of those countries facing this crisis that is thrust upon them right now. What would his view be on making the humanitarian effort on the ground? That is the debate today. It is not a debate on helicopters and equipment—