Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it you would find unanimous consent that this matter be deferred until November 23 after government orders, which would be a further deferral.
Lost his last election, in 2008, with 29% of the vote.
Department of Canadian Heritage Act November 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it you would find unanimous consent that this matter be deferred until November 23 after government orders, which would be a further deferral.
Questions on the Order Paper November 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Certificate of Nomination November 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a certificate of nomination. Pursuant to Standing Order 110(2), this certificate stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Criminal Code November 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in favour of sending this bill to committee.
First I would like to look at the existing situation. There are some situations that do allow the police to do some work with testing when they are investigating drug-impaired driving, but only in narrow circumstances. Of course if there is a voluntary participation in physical tests for drug impairment, the police may investigate along those lines.
If the police demand a blood sample from a conscious driver based upon an alcohol demand, or if they obtain a voluntary alcohol test sample of blood, the Criminal Code does provide that the sample may be further analyzed for the presence of a drug. However, and this is one of our concerns, there is no blood-drug concentration offence in the Criminal Code. It would be necessary to call an expert scientific witness to explain what impairing symptoms can be linked to the particular concentration of the drug found in the blood, and witnesses would be needed for the actual impairing signs that were observed.
Another provision of the Criminal Code authorizes police to seek a warrant to have a blood sample taken from a driver who is unconscious. The police officer must reasonably believe that the person was committing an impaired driving offence and was involved in a fatal or injurious crash in the previous four hours. This is a very narrow situation, which does not frequently occur. It would mean that police might have a passenger from the driver's vehicle who has given them information sufficient to seek the warrant.
Another way the police might pursue a drug-impaired driving investigation would be to obtain a search warrant to seize a blood sample taken in the course of medical treatment. Again, this would depend on obtaining sufficient evidence from a witness who may have been with the accused when the drugs were consumed.
None of the situations I have described happens very often. Most frequently, the police may suspect the presence of a drug in a driver's body but cannot investigate further. Consequently, it is very important to adopt legislation that authorizes police officers to ask drivers to submit to physical tests and provide samples of bodily substances, so that will our roads may be safer.
A survey by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation revealed that in 2002, almost 20% of Canadian drivers had taken the wheel less than two hours after consuming a potentially impairing drug. This included both legal and illegal drugs.
In my opinion, we must integrate the proposed amendments on drug-impaired driving with other measures, including public education, in order to make them effective.
Evaluation and treatment are also important elements in making our roads safer.
The proposed amendments are a prescription for safer roads. They address a problem that is serious and they do so in a measured way. They are based on the science that particular drug families have particular sets of symptoms that can, through physical testing, be observed by persons who are given proper training.
I am under no illusion that all police across the nation are ready to immediately proceed to drug testing of suspected impaired drivers. There is a need to complete training and to bring in the testing based upon the need and capacity in the various provinces and areas of the country. I am really pleased that some police agencies have already commenced such training and that in some provinces trained officers have already done physical testing for drug impairment, if only with suspects who voluntarily agree to participate in the tests.
I note that British Columbia has been in the vanguard in Canada and that some prosecutors and many police officers in British Columbia have participated in drug recognition training.
It is good to see that police agencies are working together to establish the capacity to train the trainers. This is what we need to transfer knowledge and skill around the country.
It will be up to the police forces to determine where the trained officers are most needed and best deployed. This legislation would enable provinces and police to use a tool that is far better than what now exists under the law in order to investigate drug impaired driving. The legislation does not force them to use this tool if they determine that they do not wish to use it.
It is important to think of the drug impaired driving legislation as covering all drugs and not just cannabis. At the same time, it is important to remember that the drug impaired driving legislation includes cannabis and that it can be seen as part of the measures that are being directed against individuals and organizations that are illegally involved with drugs. These other measures include Canada's renewed national drug strategy, police enforcement against grow operations and the proposal to give tickets to those who possess small amounts of marijuana in an effort to increase enforcement against possession.
The drug impaired driving amendments to the Criminal Code should also be viewed as part of the measures that are being taken to improve road safety in Canada generally. The Canadian Council of Motor Transport administrators report to federal, provincial and territorial transport ministers.
I believe that in the proposed amendments we have a measured response to a serious problem. In fact, Parliament has been addressing the problem of alcohol and drug impaired driving for a long time, and the end is not yet in sight. The first alcohol driving offence was placed in the Criminal Code in 1921 and the first drug impaired driving offence was placed in the Criminal Code in 1925.
With the proposed amendments, the police would have a way to investigate drug impaired driving. They would also be able to investigate drivers who have low alcohol but who are impaired because they have combined alcohol and drugs of impairment.
I am under no illusion that legislation by itself will eradicate impaired driving. Lots of other measures that are non-legislative are needed. However I firmly believe that where legislation can help then it should be put in place. Here I am convinced that the legislation will help.
One of the great difficulties with impaired drivers is that so many of them are persistently doing impaired driving trips. Often they make it home without being apprehended and without crashing. They start to think that they are okay to drive when they are under the influence when in fact they are not. Their so-called successful driving under the influence is rewarded and reinforced by the absence of detection or crash. However many do crash and many are caught. It is at the point of such health and criminal law that these impaired drivers could be assessed and sent for education and treatment. It may well be that many of them face multiple life problems and the saving to society would not only be from avoiding alcohol and drug impaired crashes but many other economic and social costs.
Turning our attention to the consequences of an impaired driving crash that is fatal, the great tragedy is that death is so avoidable. For surviving family members of a fatally injured impaired driver, or that driver's passengers or innocent road users, these deaths are emotionally devastating. We really have to thank our service providers and volunteer organizations that do so much to help the surviving victims of impaired driving crashes.
I will conclude by saying that it is very important that we proceed with the legislation, to take it to committee and to review it fully and completely. Although it may not be a panacea, it would certainly go a long way toward dealing with the issues that we see in drug impaired driving that needs attention.
Contraventions Act November 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion regarding Bill C-17, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Bill C-17 addresses an issue that is on the minds of many Canadians; that is, the reform of cannabis legislation. It is also an issue that remains a priority of the government, a priority that was reflected by the Prime Minister in his statement last summer that the government would introduce this legislation again in Parliament.
Many Canadians believe that the potential harms of using cannabis are outweighed by the stigma arising from a criminal conviction and would like to see a reduction in the negative social impact of a criminal conviction.
Public opinion surveys indicate that a majority of Canadians favour the removal of criminal sanctions for possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use. A 2002 Gallup poll survey indicated that 77% of Canadians believe that cannabis possession should either be legalized--that is 37%--or that a fine should be the only penalty for the offence, and that was indicated at 40%.
Concerns have also been expressed over the unfair and unequal application of the law. Police and court activity in respect of the possession offence vary considerably from region to region.
In some parts of the country offenders often receive no more than a verbal warning, and if charged and tried will likely receive a conditional or absolute discharge. In other parts of Canada an offender is more likely to be charged, and if convicted is likely to receive a fine or a more serious penalty.
I believe that given the current thinking by many Canadians on this matter, it is time to reform our legislation dealing with cannabis. The government has a responsibility to Canadians to adapt to and address these current concerns. With this proposed legislation, our drug law will be reformed so as to reflect Canadian reality.
Canadians believe that alternate measures such as fines are more appropriate than criminal convictions for the possession of small amounts of cannabis. The Senate special committee on illegal drugs commissioned a qualitative study of Canadians' attitudes toward cannabis. This study found that most Canadians are not concerned with the occasional recreational cannabis use, and support alternative measures of dealing with the possession of small amounts of cannabis.
A Decima poll conducted in September 2003 showed that a majority of Canadians favoured marijuana decriminalization, while a significant number agreed there should be complete legalization.
Considerable research was carried out by two parliamentary committees, which heard numerous witnesses in connection with Canada's drug legislation. In September 2002, the special Senate committee on illegal drugs tabled its final report, recommending the legalization of cannabis. The special House committee on the non-medical use of drugs recommended in its report on December 12, 2002 a comprehensive strategy for decriminalizing the possession and cultivation of not more than thirty grams of cannabis for personal use.
In the September 2002 Speech from the Throne, the government made a commitment to “act on the results of parliamentary consultations with Canadians on options for change in our drug laws, including the possibility of the decriminalization of marijuana possession”.
Canadians are also concerned about the proliferation of commercial cannabis marijuana production operations, commonly known as grow ops. This issue has also become a problem of serious law enforcement concern. These concerns relate to the involvement of organized crime, risks to public safety from operations in residential districts, and threats and intimidation directed at the owners of farms and other private property where production is undertaken.
The smuggling of cannabis from Canada to the United States has become a major issue in cross-border law enforcement relations. In spite of considerable amounts of enforcement resources being used to control these grow ops, these efforts have failed to curtail them.
Bill C-17 proposes reforms in respect of two areas, the first dealing with the possession offence regarding small quantities of marijuana and cannabis resin, and the second dealing with the offence of production or cultivation. Under this proposed reform, amendments will be made to the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In the first instance, the Contraventions Act will be amended so as to permit the act to apply to the new possession offences involving small quantities of cannabis material and to the new cultivation offence involving a very small number of cannabis plants.
Secondly, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act will be amended to create four new offences of cannabis possession involving small quantities of cannabis material, each with distinct penalties: possession of one gram or less of resin punishable by a fine of up to $300 for adults and up to $200 for youth; possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana punishable by a fine of up to $150 for adults and up to $100 for a youth; possession of either of those amounts with one or more of the following aggravated factors--while having care and control or while operating a motor vehicle, while committing an indictable offence, or possession in or near a school--which offence will be punishable by a fine of up to $400 for adults and up to $250 for youth; and possession of more than 15 grams, up to and including 30 grams, punishable by a fine of up to $300 for adults and up to $200 for youth when prosecuted by way of a ticket, or punishable by up to six months and/or a fine of up to $1,000 if prosecuted by way of summary conviction.
For the first three offences, law enforcement will be able to issue a ticket exclusively. Peace officers will have the discretion of enforcing the fourth offence either by issuing a ticket or a summons, depending on the officer's appreciation of the circumstances related to the offence.
As for the cultivation of cannabis, the bill would restructure the offence as follows: one to three plants: guilty of anoffence punishable on summary convictionand liable to a fine of $500 or, in the case of a young person, $250. This would be exclusively by ticket.
For four to twenty-five plants: guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years less a day, or on summary conviction, to a fine ofnot more than twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months, or to both.
For twenty-six to fifty plants: guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of not more than ten years. Finally, for more than fifty plants: imprisonment for a term of not more than fourteen years.
Under the proposed legislation, the courts would have to give written reasons for not imposing a custodial sentence when one or more of the following factors are present: a person used real property that belongs to a third party to commit the offence; the offence constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children in or near the area where the offence was committed; the offence constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; and the person set or placed a trap, device or other thing that was likely cause the death or bodily harm where the offence was committed.
The question of changing our law on cannabis is one of long-standing, going all the way back to the LeDain commission in the early 1970s. Cannabis legislation and, more specific, the offence of possession of small quantities of cannabis has been a topic of considerable public scrutiny and political comment.
The government proposes to address this issue through this bill. I hope the motion to send the bill to the committee before second reading will receive the support of all hon. members.
Criminal Code November 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, picking up from where I left off last evening, the second change that would enhance safety is the inclusion of those individuals found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder within the DNA data bank scheme. We currently have in the House Bill C-10 which proposes important changes to the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with the mentally disordered offender.
While Parliament rightly does not submit persons who have a mental disorder conviction to imprisonment because of their diminished responsibility, we must remember that these persons have been found beyond a reasonable doubt to have done the act that constitutes the physical element of the offence. It is clear they may be very dangerous and so they are made subject to the jurisdiction of a provincial review board.
By making it possible for a judge to order that their DNA profiles be included in the DNA data bank, we may be solving crimes that they have committed in the past. As well, if they should be released and commit a crime where they leave their DNA, we will solve that crime.
Members should remember, however, that having their DNA in the data bank could be a benefit to a mentally disordered offender who has been released into the community. In the event of a crime similar to the one for which they were tried being committed near where they reside, they are likely to be suspects. However, if their DNA does not match the DNA from the crime scene, the police will know they were not involved and leave them undisturbed.
Another important change is creating a process for compelling the offender to attend at a specified time and place to provide a DNA sample. The current legislation requires that a DNA sample be taken at the time the person is convicted or as soon thereafter as is feasible. This has proven unworkable on the ground in some jurisdictions. The police cannot always have a trained officer attending at every court and so the courts have been ordering offenders to present themselves at the police station at a specified time. Unfortunately, this procedure was not foreseen by the Criminal Code so there is no express provision for issuing a warrant to arrest the person if he or she does not show up. Some offenders who should be in the data bank have not shown up and the police need the tools to make the court order effective.
Bill C-13 would permit a judge to make an order for the taking of a DNA sample at a time other than the imposing of the sentence. It also provides a warrant for the arrest of the person if the person fails to appear for that DNA sampling. As a result of consultations with the provinces, the warrant will be for the purpose of taking a sample rather than for the more usual arrest and bringing the offender back to the court that made the order. This means that an offender convicted in Toronto who skips and then is subsequently arrested in Vancouver will not have to be flown back at great expense to have the finger pricked for that test. The Vancouver police will be able to do it under the DNA data bank order.
While it is not known how many offenders have failed to show up, I understand this is a major concern for the police. We should move swiftly to fix this problem.
The most important changes proposed by Bill C-13 are the changes in the list of designated offences covered by the DNA data bank scheme. The list of designated offences is the lynchpin of this legislation. A DNA warrant can only be granted for a designated offence and the crime scene index only contains DNA found at the scene of or on the victim of a designated offence.
It is very important that the members of the House consider sending the legislation immediately to the committee so that we can put in place those issues that I have been outlining here today. They are of great concern to the police, the provinces and those of us in the House.
Criminal Code November 1st, 2004
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to recommend that Bill C-13 be referred to committee before second reading. I believe that all parties in the House are in favour of a national DNA data bank and want to make it as effective a tool as possible for law enforcement.
As of October 15, the DNA data bank has 66,080 DNA profiles entered into the convicted offender index and 17,199 entered into the crime scene index.
By comparing the DNA profiles in these indices against one another, the DNA data bank has linked 2,333 offender profiles to a crime scene profile, thereby assisting in the investigation. The DNA evidence has been vital in resolving very serious offences, including 165 murders, 391 sexual assaults and 319 armed robberies.
Members are aware that the legislation creating the DNA data bank calls for a parliamentary review within five years of the legislation coming into force; that is, by June 30 next year.
However we should not delay making needed changes that will make the DNA bank more effective. Parliament should move promptly by passing Bill C-13 to make the proposed amendments and improvements in the DNA data bank legislation to ensure the effectiveness of the legislation rather than postponing the changes until after the parliamentary review.
No one in the House can foretell when that review will be started, how long it will take or when remedial legislation will be enacted.
The bill will make significant changes to the DNA Identification Act that governs how the DNA data bank works. Although these are major changes, I will focus on those that concern the Criminal Code and those directly related to public safety.
In my view, the following are the most significant changes proposed by the bill that would contribute to protecting the safety of Canadians.
The first major change is the inclusion of the offences of indecent assault female, indecent assault male and gross indecency in the list of designated offences and in the list of sexual offences for the purposes of the retroactive DNA data bank provisions.
Although these offences have been repealed, charges can still be laid since elements of proof are often not discovered until many years after the crime.
Moreover, there are persons who should be in the data bank, that is, the DNA data bank, as a result of having committed a series of sexual offences prior to the legislation coming into force.
The Criminal Code does allow for a judge to authorize taking DNA samples from persons convicted of two or more sexual offences. This change to the definition of sexual offence would broaden the scope of the retroactive provision.
As well, Bill C-13 would now make it possible for an application to be made for a DNA sample to be taken from an offender who before the coming into force of the DNA data bank legislation in June 2000 had been convicted of one murder and one sexual offence committed at different times.
I am advised that the combination of the change to the definition of sexual offence and the inclusion of persons who have one murder and one sexual offence would make another 400 offenders eligible for inclusion in the data bank. There are currently 1,876 offenders who have been included in the data bank under the retroactive scheme.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Tobacco Industry October 27th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the federal government does not side with Imperial Tobacco in any way, shape or form. We as a government have made great strides in talking about the harms that tobacco produces. We are out there working with youth convincing them not to participate in tobacco.
The reality in this particular case is that we were brought into the court case in order to defend our position and we are going to do that.
Canadian Heritage Act October 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that the hon. member brought forward that point. It really has been of interest to those who are interested in the marine area that certain species and habitat be protected for certain elements of our marine heritage. Clearly this has been done.
The new marine sites are being set forth and are soon to be added to our list of conservation areas. It is extremely important that the matter be attended to as quickly as possible, and that we have full and complete contact with all of the communities of interest and the stakeholders. We must make sure when we designate a marine conservation area that it truly reflects the special interest of that particular area of our marine water system.
Canadian Heritage Act October 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on the occasion of the second reading of Bill C-7.
On December 12, 2003 control and supervision of the Parks Canada agency was transferred from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Minister of the Environment. The transfer was given effect through an order in council.
On July 20, 2004 a further order in council came into effect relating to the responsibilities for built heritage. It was required in order to clarify the earlier order in council. First, control and supervision of the historic places policy group were transferred from the Department of Canadian Heritage to Parks Canada. Second, the powers, duties and functions related to the design and implementation of programs that have built heritage as their primary subject matter were transferred from the Ministry of Canadian Heritage to the Ministry of the Environment.
Bill C-7 updates legislation to reflect these changes. It deals with the machinery of the government and does not contain any substantive policy provisions. It simply gives legislative effect to the government reorganization that was announced on December 12, 2003 as it affects Parks Canada.
In addition to amending the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act, Bill C-7 also amends statutes through which Parks Canada delivers its mandate. They would be the Canada National Parks Act, the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canada Shipping Act.
There are no additional funding requirements related to Bill C-7.
Parks Canada's organizational integrity has been maintained. The agency remains committed to working with Canadians to protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage for present and future generations.
I would like to take a few moments to talk about the Parks Canada story. Canada's national parks, national historic sites and national marine conservation areas represent the soul of Canada. They are a central part of who we are and what we are. They are places of magic, wonder and heritage, and each tells its own story. Together they connect Canadians to our roots, our future and to each other.
What we cherish as part of our national identity we also recognize as part of our national responsibility. All Canadians share the obligation to preserve and protect Canada's unique cultural and natural heritage. Together we hold our national parks, national historic sites and national marine conservation areas in trust for the benefit of this generation and future generations.
Canada has the distinction of having established the first national parks service in the world. Over the decades our system of national parks has grown to 41 national parks and reserves, preserving for future generations almost 265,000 thousand square kilometres of lands and waters. There are plans to add, as has been mentioned earlier, an additional 100,000 square kilometres through the creation of eight more national parks. This legacy is possible in large part because provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal people and local communities have worked with us to create many of these new national parks.
The creation and management of national parks is a delicate balance between the protection of ecologically significant areas of importance to wildlife and meeting economic and social needs of communities. The Government of Canada is committed to working with aboriginal people, local communities and other Canadians and stakeholders to protect our precious natural heritage through the creation of new national parks and national marine conservation areas.
In October 2002 the government announced an action plan to substantially complete Canada's system of national parks by creating 10 new parks over the next five years. This will expand the system by almost 50% with a total area spanning nearly the size of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, we have already created two of these 10 new national parks with work continuing on the eight other proposals. Five new national marine conservation areas will also be created.
Canada is blessed with exceptional natural treasures and we owe it to Canadians and to the world to protect these lands and waters. The action plan calls on Parks Canada to work with all of its partners, the provinces and territories, aboriginal and rural communities, industry and environmental groups and others to complete this effort.
In March 2003 the government allocated $144 million over five years and $29 million annually thereafter toward this effort. The action plan has already produced two new national parks.
The new Gulf Islands National Park Reserve of Canada protects 33 square kilometres of ecologically rare land in the southern Gulf Islands of British Columbia.
At over 20,000 square kilometres, the new Ukkusiksalik National Park protects virtually an entire watershed close to the Arctic Circle in Nunavut. This park is a product of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Inuit of Nunavut, forged over several decades of hard work all focused on protecting land, waters, caribou and polar bears for present and future generations.
Specific sites for more national parks have been selected in other natural regions across Canada: the southern Okanagan; lower Similkameen in the interior of British Columbia; Labrador's Torngat Mountains and Mealy Mountains; Manitoba's lowlands boreal forest; Bathurst Island in Nunavut; and the east arm of Great Slave Lake in the Northwest Territories. Sites for the two remaining national parks are being identified by Parks Canada.
Negotiations to establish the Torngat Mountains national park reserve in northern Labrador are nearing completion. This longstanding proposal will protect some of the highest mountains in North America east of the Canadian Rockies.
In March 2004 the premier of Manitoba and the former minister of the environment signed a memorandum of agreement identifying the boundaries for public consultation for a national park in the Manitoba lowlands. They also committed to negotiating a national park establishment agreement by May 2005. Both parks will make magnificent additions to our world-class national parks system.
The government is also working with partners to establish five new national marine conservation areas adding an estimated 15,000 square kilometres to the system. This will be a major step forward for global conservation of marine habitat.
Canada has the world's longest coastline and 7% of its fresh water. This commitment to creating new marine conservation areas is consistent with the recent Speech from the Throne in which our government made a commitment to create new marine protected areas as part of the ocean action plan.
These natural marine conservation areas will be located in ecologically unrepresented marine regions. Four sites have been identified: Gwaii Haanas off British Columbia's Queen Charlotte Islands; western Lake Superior; British Columbia's southern Strait of Georgia; and the waters off Îles-de-la-Madeleine in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
While a site for the remaining national marine conservation area has yet to be finalized, Parks Canada has received a number of proposals from local communities. This is a testament to the growing interest in the conservation of our marine heritage.
In addition the government will accelerate its actions over the next five years to improve the ecological integrity of Canada's 41 existing national parks. This will implement the action plan arising from the panel on the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks, whose report was endorsed by the government in April 2000.
These two initiatives, the action plan to expand our system of national parks and national marine conservation areas and the action plan on ecological integrity, are the most ambitious initiatives to expand and protect national parks and national marine conservation areas in over 100 years; indeed since the Banff National Park of Canada, Canada's first, was established in 1885.
Parks Canada needs to get on with the job Parliament has assigned to it. I urge members of the House to give speedy passage to Bill C-7.