Paul MacKlin

[Canadian Heritage Act, October 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to participate in this debate and listen to the passion with which so many speakers today have expressed their interest in our natural heritage and culture.

The previous speaker obviously has demonstrated in words that in fact he has a great deal of interest in our aboriginal community, and the protection of their heritage and looking at various sites that he represents in Yukon. I am curious and would like to know from the member, what sites does he believe we ought to be looking at for future inclusion as part of the national parks system?

[Criminal Code, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-10 and to encourage all members of the House to support these reforms and agree to a prompt review by the appropriate parliamentary committee.

These reforms may be familiar to hon. members who participated in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when they did their review of mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code in 2002. These reforms have benefited from and reflect the committee's input.

The criminal law governing persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and those found unfit to stand trial is not well-known. I would suggest that many people misunderstand the law. There remains a perception that a person who commits an offence and is found not criminally responsible gets away with the crime. This is simply not the case.

Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code governs mentally disordered accused. This part includes the legal and procedural rules governing persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and those found unfit to stand trial.

Some sections in Part XXI are complex, interconnected and very technical. However, this part of the Criminal Code provides a comprehensive regime to ensure fair and effective supervision and treatment of mentally disordered accused and the protection of public security.

The reforms in Bill C-10 would improve Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code by providing new powers for review boards that bear the responsibility for determining the accused's disposition or discharge, ensuring that the permanently unfit accused do not languish in the justice system, expanding the role of victims of crime, and clarifying several confusing and misinterpreted provisions, just to name a few of the amendments.

In considering Bill C-10, it is important that all members appreciate who these amendments affect. These reforms apply to persons found unfit to stand trial and persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

“Unfit to stand trial” is defined in the Criminal Code as unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so.

The accused is also unable to understand the nature, object or possible consequences of the proceedings, or to communicate with counsel. Essentially, this means that the accused does not understand what is going on, because of a diagnosis of mental disorder.

Where a person is found to be unfit to stand trial, the prosecution, that is the trial, cannot proceed and the accused will be dealt with by the review board until the accused is found fit and can be tried.

An inquiry must be held two years after the verdict of unfitness and every two years thereafter until the accused is either acquitted or tried, to decide whether there is still sufficient evidence to put the accused on trial.

The court may also order treatment for the accused for up to 60 days based on medical evidence that the proposed treatment will make the accused fit to stand trial without risk of harm to the accused and that without the treatment the accused will likely remain unfit to stand trial.

For a verdict of not criminally responsible, which is an exemption from criminal responsibility by reason of mental disorder, it must be shown that the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence when it was committed that rendered him or her incapable of either appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission, or of knowing that it was wrong.

Mental disorder is defined in the Criminal Code as a disease of the mind. The trial judge must determine, based on psychiatric evidence, what constitutes a disease of the mind or mental disorder. This verdict and the legal test that is applied dates back to the M'Naghten rules established in the mid-1800s.

Where a person is tried for an offence and found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, the person is neither convicted nor acquitted. This is a special verdict with unique consequences. Once found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, the accused is not sentenced because of course the person is not convicted.

The court or a review board, which is a special tribunal, will determine the proper disposition for the accused in accordance with the criteria set out in the Criminal Code. For example, some accused who pose a high risk will be detained in a psychiatric hospital. Others may live in the community with strict conditions. The review board will continue to monitor and review the disposition, making any necessary changes until such time as the accused can be absolutely discharged.

Review boards are made up of officials appointed by their provincial government to administer Part XX.1 provisions of the Criminal Code governing persons found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible of account of mental disorder, and their supervision.

Guided by several criteria set out in the Code or based on case law, boards determine how the accused should be supervised, for example whether housed in a psychiatric hospital, living in the community with conditions, such as periodical hospital appointments, or absolutely discharged.

Bill C-10 amendments will expand the statutory powers of the review board, including to permit the review board: to order assessments of the mental condition of the accused; to adjourn their hearings for up to 30 days; to convene a hearing on their own motion; to compel the accused to appear at a hearing by issuing a summons or warrant; to extend the annual hearing from 12 months to 24 months on the consent of the accused and Crown and, in limited circumstances, for persons in custody in hospital who have committed serious personal violent offences; and to recommend to the court to inquire into the status of a permanently unfit accused.

I could continue to highlight the many essential reforms in the bill, but our goal today is to ensure that the bill is reviewed again and as soon as possible by a committee so the House can move forward with speedy passage.

I have mentioned only a few of the features of the bill and provided the backdrop for these reforms. Canada should be very proud of our criminal law that governs mentally disordered accused. Hon. members are faced with many justice related issues that highlight the need to balance public safety and individual rights. This is an onerous responsibility but is one we have discharged very well in the legislation governing the mentally disordered accused.

I encourage all hon. members of the House to support these reforms.

[Justice and Attorney General of Canada, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) it is my pleasure to table, in both official languages, the annual report concerning investigative hearings and recognisance with conditions, December 24, 2002 to December 23, 2003.

[Criminal Code, October 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act.

Bill C-2 addresses an issue that is foremost on the minds of many Canadians, mainly the protection of children against abuse, neglect and exploitation. It is also an issue that remains a priority of the government, a commitment that was reflected again in the recent Speech from the Throne, as well as by the fact that this is the first legislative item introduced in this Parliament.

Bill C-2 proposes much welcomed criminal law reforms and addresses five main issues.

First, it strengthens current provisions banning child pornography.

Second, it further protects children from sexual exploitation by people who take advantage of their vulnerability.

Third, it amends certain provisions on sentencing for offences against children, including violence and negligence, in order for the sentences to better reflect the seriousness of the offence.

Fourth, it will make testifying easier on the child victim or witness and other vulnerable persons through certain measures, by ensuring coherence and clarity in the rules for using testimonial aids and by making sure from the outset that the child is competent to testify.

Finally, it creates two new voyeurism offences prohibiting anyone from surreptitiously observing or making a recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Canada's criminal laws against child pornography are already among the toughest in the world. Bill C-2 proposes further reforms that will make these laws even tougher.

Bill C-2 proposes the following child pornography reforms. It will broaden the definition of child pornography to include audio formats as well as written material that has as its dominant characteristic the description of unlawful sexual activity with children, where that description is provided for a sexual purpose.

Any advertising using child pornography is prohibited. The maximum sentence for any child pornography offence punishable on summary conviction is tripled from six to eighteen months.

It will make the commission of any child pornography offence with intent to profit an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes, and it replaces the existing defences of artistic merit, education, scientific or medical purpose, and public good with a two-part, harm-based, legitimate purpose defence.

Under this proposed reform, a defence would only be available for an act that has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art and does not pose an undue risk of harm to children.

Bill C-2 also proposes to provide greater protection to young persons against sexual exploitation from persons who would prey upon their vulnerability. Under the proposed reform, courts would be directed to infer that a relationship with a young person is exploitive of that young person by looking at the nature and circumstances of that relationship, including the age of the young person, any difference in age, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence exerted over the young person.

Bill C-2 forces the court to consider the accused's conduct toward the child and not whether or not the child or victim consented to the conduct.

We often hear complaints about current sentencing results in cases involving child victims. Bill C-2 directly responds to these concerns and proposes numerous amendments.

In addition to the sentencing reforms related to child pornography, Bill C-2 also proposes to triple the maximum penalties on summary conviction from six to 18 months for child-specific sexual offences, as well as for child abandonment and the failure to provide necessities of life, and to increase the maximum penalty on indictment from five to 10 years for sexual exploitation of a young person, and from two to five years for child abandonment and failure to provide the necessities of life.

In all cases involving the abuse of a child, sentencing courts would be directed to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct and to consider such conduct an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

Bill C-2 also proposes criminal law reforms that will enhance the ability of child and other vulnerable victims or witnesses to provide clear, complete and accurate accounts of events, while at the same time respecting the rights and freedoms of the accused.

Bill C-2 will facilitate testimony through the use of testimonial aids in three categories of cases: in cases involving a child victim or witness under the age of 18, or a victim or witness with a disability; in cases involving victims of criminal harassment; and in cases involving other vulnerable adult victims and witnesses.

Bill C-2 proposes to amend the applicable test for the use of testimonial aids in cases involving all child victims. These aids would be available on application unless they interfere with the proper administration of justice. In cases involving victims of criminal harassment where the accused is self-represented, the Crown could apply for the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination of the victim. In these cases, the court would be required to appoint counsel, unless doing so would interfere with the proper administration of justice.

In cases involving other vulnerable victims or witnesses, such as, for example, victims of spousal abuse or sexual assault, the Crown could apply for the use of any of the testimonial aids or the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination for self-represented accused. In these cases, these adult witnesses would have to demonstrate that, based upon the surrounding circumstances, including the nature of the offence and any relationship between them and the accused, they would be unable to provide a full and candid account without a testimonial aid.

Bill C-2 also proposes amending the Canada Evidence Act to abolish the requirement for a competency hearing for the witness and to abolish the distinction between testifying under oath or not.

Under Bill C-2, the competence of a person under 14 years of age to testify will depend on that person's ability to understand and answer the questions, and not on their ability to explain what it means to them to swear an oath or tell the truth. It will be up to the judge, as in any other situation, to weigh the testimony.

Last, Bill C-2 proposes to modernize the criminal law's response to the new ways in which acts of voyeurism are being committed.

As I said at the beginning, Bill C-2 proposes many welcome changes to the Criminal Code. The House has already passed an earlier version of this bill. I hope this new and improved version will still receive the support of the hon. members.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I know that we do not have the normal power as in other institutions where we would simply cede to another member to answer on one's behalf. We see this in the British house where in fact one can cede to another member.

However, let us go back to the issue at hand and that was whether or not, in that announcement, there was old money included in that $488 million. As I understand it, and the minister clarified this earlier this evening before the House, the $488 million that was in that package was all new money.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member has a point that in fact we need to always be reviewing existing programs to ensure that they fit the needs of the people in the various regions.

It is very difficult to find programming that will be universal without having to make fine tuning adjustments. The minister has indicated that a review process is an ongoing process in terms of programming to see whether in fact there can be improvement.

Each and every one of us knows that when we look back at the programming, and in particular when we look back at CAISP although there is criticism of CAISP, it was a program that was developed after many months of consultations from coast to coast with group after group after group.

At the end of the day, yes, there are still areas that need to be re-examined and looked at to see if we can fine tune them to make them more responsive to the individual. It is always a challenge to get meaningful national programs.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, there is no question that is true. I want to emphasize tonight that fact that has been developed through a system of mutual respect. I think the respect is for the agencies that we have in place and the wonderful job that they do in inspection, setting out guidelines, and establishing specifications for the way in which our meat is slaughtered, ultimately packed and transported.

Within our agricultural system we have the concept of protection from gate to plate with the tracking system. As the minister mentioned tonight, he is prepared to work with others who do not have the tracking system but would like to have a tracking and tracing system in place. He is prepared to look at and work toward establishing that in other areas.

Clearly and without any question Canadians respect the system that is in place. Our consumers have actually increased their consumption of beef which I think is an absolute and complete endorsement of the way in which we are protecting food safety in this country.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to stand before this august group this evening and to discuss the issues before us.

Last week I had the opportunity in my riding of Northumberland—Quinte West in Ontario to meet with the executive of my local cattlemen's association and to discuss with them for a period of two hours the issues that they saw within their area and what they felt we ought to be doing.

I know that each and every one of us when we come to this place would like to come with solutions but sometimes in a take note debate we also have to come with a sharing of support for others who have worked within the system and have done immeasurably good work and to give them credit.

I know when we spoke last week the farmers were concerned, and it has been expressed tonight, as to how we get the details of this program that has been set forward. How do we find out when it will start to actually move forward? Tonight we have actually heard from the minister some of those timing elements and where they actually will come into play.

I believe there is a true focus at this point in terms of going forward with this. It has been a process to get to this focus that has taken some time. We cannot simply reposition an entire industry in the wink of an eye, especially when we sit back and look at how we have gotten to this place. I think a lot of us held hope that the border would open earlier and that in fact we would have that opportunity to once again engage in the harmonized North American market.

However, as luck would have it, and as it has turned out that did not happen, we at least have been able to establish within the industry at large that in fact a repositioning was something that was meaningful and that had to be followed up with.

Repositioning is obviously something that takes time. It does not happen overnight. The reality is that it appears that all of the players within the areas of concern have been working together to try to achieve this goal.

What we see represented in the thinking and the philosophy that was presented by the minister this evening is a positive philosophy and approach. I do believe there is opportunity now for us to try to put some balance back into the market, get some money into the producer's hands and to build that capacity that we were talking about that seems to be missing.

One of the issues that I would say we want to pay respect to in this process of BSE, has to do with those who have been dealing with the safety of our food. We are all concerned about the safety of the food we eat and the drugs we take. It does not matter whether we are talking about the beef industry or any other industry where our food safety is concerned. We clearly want to take all the precautions that we should to make sure that the industry is protected.

In this particular case, BSE is something that really did have some elements of protection built in through the system that we have in Canada. I think it is important that we review some of those processes that are there.

As it has been said a number of times today and on previous occasions in this House, we have one of the safest food supplies in the world. I cannot disagree with that. Canada has a multi-layered system where we are always working with a network of federal, provincial, territorial and local government departments, ministries and other agencies that combine with the private sector to make sure we are protecting the food from gate to plate.

Through the emergence of BSE in this country, Canada has had very unfortunate consequences for our cattlemen and the cattle producers, but at least we can say from the positive side that the detection and diversion of the infected animal away from the human food chain demonstrates that the Canadian food safety system worked in the detection and response to that threat.

It is extremely important that we note that, once the first case of BSE was confirmed, the full spectrum of partners within the Canadian food safety system became engaged. It was well demonstrated that the various departments and agencies came together, and CFIA did take the lead and did a very positive job for us.

There is a great deal of importance to be placed on this because if our food safety system is not in place and operating well then what happened with this one animal could have had absolutely unbelievable consequences with respect to what has been previously demonstrated tonight in debate concerning the confidence of the Canadian consumer.

As we look at this issue, clearly that has been a very important part of the acceptance of our safety system by other countries because they have looked at us and they have seen the reaction of our consumers to our system. It is very important that we look at that as a measure of protection in the public sector that has been positive.

For example, taking the specific risk material out of our food chain at the point of slaughter was announced in July 2003. That was a very important part of this process and of course that specific risk material is composed of tissues that in BSE infected cattle contain an agent that may transmit that particular disease.

In diseased animals the infected agent is concentrated in tissues located in the brain and spinal cord. Many international observers have marvelled at the fact that there was no mass panic among Canadian consumers and that there was not the mass hysteria about the safety of beef in this country that there was in Europe and in Japan when the disease first emerged in those parts of the world.

The fact that Canadians have continued to buy beef during the months that followed the detection of that first case of BSE is reflective of the high level of confidence that Canadian consumers have in our food safety system. That consumer confidence was not altered even after the finding of that second Canadian cow that had BSE in the United States. The public confidence in our food system was very important.

Canadians believe that every effort is being made to provide a food inspection system that ensures that sick animals do not get processed into meat and that our government food inspection authorities verify the removal of the specific risk material at slaughter, and ensure that the proper processing and packing practices are followed in this country.

It is important that we acknowledge the great work done by the government officials who worked so hard and effectively to ensure that the right mechanisms were and are in place to manage these issues on our behalf. The public's trust in our food safety and food inspection system is extremely important. If it were not for CFIA and Health Canada being pro-active in developing a number of counter measures to deal with these threats, the results could have been significantly different.

When we look at this whole issue, it comes down to a great deal of reliance upon science and the science-based approach to dealing with this issue. Yes, we are having difficulty convincing some of our trading partners that it is the basis upon which we should go forward. However, that science is what has made and helped to maintain our consumer in this country as a positive force in this fight to keep our beef producers in business.

I want to thank everyone who is engaging in this debate. It is important that we do so. I certainly hope that we will look forward to days in the very near future when this will be something that was just an event that happened in the industry and we have recovered.

[Lupus, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I lost a dear friend to lupus, a disease that attacks the body's immune system.

My friend was not alone, since more than five million people worldwide suffer the effects of this disease and each year over a hundred thousand men, women and children are newly diagnosed with lupus.

Many physicians worldwide are unaware of the symptoms and the health effects of lupus. As a result, many people suffer for years before they obtain a correct diagnosis and medical treatment. There is an urgent need to increase awareness and educate our communities worldwide about the debilitating impact of lupus.

Therefore, let us resolve that the World Health Organization recognize and declare May 10, 2004, as World Lupus Day and that we call for increased funding for medical research and education on this significant public health issue.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion to send Bill C-32 to the committee for review.

Bill C-32 fully responds to various parliamentary committees that have urged consideration of ways to improve legislation for the investigation of drug impaired driving.

In 2003 the special committee of the House that examined Bill C-38, that is cannabis reforms, now Bill C-10, recommended that the government consider amendments relating to drug recognition evaluation in order to aid in drug impaired driving investigations.

Earlier in the fall of 2003, the government had released a consultation paper on drug impaired driving to stakeholders and provinces that reflected discussions among federal and provincial officials. Those discussions had been recommended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights following its 1999 review of the impaired driving provisions in the Criminal Code.

Also in 2002, the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs had recommended that consideration be given to amendments for drug recognition expert legislation.

Currently section 253(a) of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to drive while one's ability to operate is impaired by alcohol or a drug. This includes driving while impaired by a combination of alcohol and a drug. For alcohol there is a separate offence in section 253(b) for driving while over the legal limit, but there are no similar drug legal limits.

The drugs and driving committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science has indicated that for the vast majority of drugs there is no scientific agreement on the concentration threshold at which there is impairment that significantly increases collision risk.

The Criminal Code currently authorizes the police to make demands for alcohol breath tests. These readings are necessary to prove the alcohol legal limit offence in section 253(b) and refusal of the alcohol breath tests is an offence.

These provisions are very helpful in the investigation process that leads to dealing with the alcohol legal limit offence. For section 253(a), drug impaired driving investigations, the police and the public are often less familiar with the physiological effects of drugs than those associated with alcohol. Bill C-32 would give the police the tools to better investigate section 253(a), drug impaired driving incidents.

Bill C-32 would authorize a peace officer, who reasonably suspects that a person has alcohol or a drug in the body, to demand that the person perform physical sobriety tests at the roadside. These involve a heel to toe walk and turn, following with the eyes the officer's hand movement, and standing on one leg. If the tests give the officer reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed an alcohol involved driving offence, the officer can demand that the person provide a breath sample on the approved instrument. Typically an officer who has taken the necessary training does this testing at the police station.

If, after the roadside physical sobriety tests, the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a drug impaired driving offence has occurred, the officer may demand that the person perform tests in a drug recognition expert evaluation back at the police station. The trained officer who conducts the evaluation will conduct the steps in the evaluation and classify the family of drugs, if any, that is causing impairment.

If no test has been done at the roadside for alcohol and no test was done at the police station for alcohol and the officer conducting the evaluation has reasonable suspicion of alcohol in the body, the officer may demand a sample of breath on an approved screening device in order to confirm whether alcohol is present. If the officer conducting the evaluation forms the opinion that a drug is causing impairment, the officer can then demand a sample of urine, saliva or blood. The sample will be tested. Where the result shows that the drug which the officer identified as causing impairment is present, a charge would proceed.

Once again, as with alcohol, refusal of any of the demands without reasonable excuse would be a Criminal Code offence carrying the same penalties that now exist for driving while impaired, driving while over the alcohol legal limit or refusing to provide a breath sample.

If the prosecution proceeds by summary conviction, which is of course the less serious type of charge that can be laid, the existing maximum is six months imprisonment. If the prosecution proceeds by indictment, the maximum is five years imprisonment. Where there is impaired driving that causes death, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Where there is impaired driving that causes bodily harm, the maximum penalty is 10 years of imprisonment.

On the first offence, the minimum penalty is a fine of $600. On a second offence, the minimum is 14 days of imprisonment. On a subsequent offence, the minimum penalty is 90 days of imprisonment. In addition, upon a conviction, the court must also impose a period of prohibition from driving anywhere in Canada. The minimum driving prohibition increases with repeat offences.

The courts have already found that under section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the short detention at roadside for a breath test on an approved screening device, without the right to legal counsel is justifiable. Bill C-32 in its demand for physical sobriety tests at the roadside provides the police with a similar tool that, in my view, is equally justifiable.

Police currently give the right to counsel at the police station before the suspect performs an alcohol breath test on an approved instrument. It is anticipated that police would follow the same practice prior to a drug recognition expert evaluation.

In addition to the drug impaired driving elements of Bill C-32, the bill contains provisions that would correct some section numbering of Bill C-10, that is cannabis reforms. Bill C-32 also contains consequential amendments and coming into force provisions.

Currently, there are several provinces with police officers that have sobriety test and DRE training. However, these officers have no authority to make a demand for testing and can only conduct tests if a suspect voluntarily participates. Bill C-32 will, in that regard, be a giant step forward for police who investigate drug impaired driving incidents.

Clearly, the time has come for this type of legislation to be put in place. I urge all members to send the bill to committee for review. There we will be able to have all the stakeholders and the witnesses can come forward and make their perspectives known. Clearly, this area is an area that does present some difficulties. However, I believe this bill goes a long way toward bringing us to a point where drug impaired driving will bring the penalties to it that it deserves and will help in removing them from our roadways.

I encourage all members to support this going forward to committee for further review.