|
Introduction
Dear Readers,
Once again spring is here, and it is a welcome
relief to the hectic pace of the past few months.
Throughout most of the winter session I was kept busy
with legislation, most of which came to the Senate
Committee I chair. During this last session, the
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs met a total of 84 times, for 170.7 hours, and
heard 369 witnesses, in the study of 33 pieces of
legislation.
>One of the more complex pieces of legislation
was Bill C-71, an act to amend the Tobacco Control Act.
The Committee spent 33 days, and heard from 61
witnesses, including representatives from the tobacco
industry, the sports and recreation genre, the arts, and
the health care sector, during the Committees in-depth
study of this bill. Bill C-71 was given Royal Assent on
April 25, 1997.
There were a number of visitors to the Senate this
past session seeking practical information on the
advantages and disadvantages of Canada`s constitution
and legal framework. In November, elected
representatives from Finland`s Committee on
Constitutional Affairs met with the Standing Senate
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to discuss
constitutional issues in both countries. In early April,
the Committee welcomed members from the Queensland State
Parliament of Australia to discuss what effect the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms has had on legislation.
Since the last issue of FYI I have introduced two
private members bills, one on the issue of pain control
and the withholding and withdrawing of treatment,
(S-13), the other on the repeal of Section 43 of the
Criminal Code.
It is apparent from the flood of letters I
received in my office that the introduction of these two
bills has encouraged a much needed debate, in the media,
and in the public, on the issues of palliative care and
the security of the child. Although both bills died on
the Order Paper with the dissolution of Parliament and
the federal election, I hope the debate will continue.
This summer I will review the suggestions and concerns
expressed by Canadians in the letters I received last
session. I plan to reintroduce the bills in the first
session of the new Parliament, which will likely be in
the fall, and have them reflect some of the concerns
expressed by those of you who wrote to me on these
issues.
Enjoy your summer!
Corporal
Punishment
Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the
place of a parent is justified in using force by way of
correction toward a pupil or a child, as the case may
be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed
what is reasonable under the circumstances.
>On December 12, 1996, I introduced Bill S-14, an
Act to Amend the Criminal Code and the Department of
Health Act (security of the child), in the Senate. The
bill had two purposes: to repeal section 43 of the
Criminal Code and to amend the Department of Health Act
to clarify the role, duties, function and
responsibilities of the Minister of Health under the Act
with respect to the children of Canada.
>Clause 2(1) and clause 2(2) of the bill would
have amended the Department of Health Act. Clause 2(1)
sought to clarify the Minister responsibility for the
promotion and preservation of the physical, mental and
social well-being of the people of Canada to explicitly
include, with respect to the children of Canada, the
education of Canadians about the health and social risks
associated with the corporal punishment of children and
the alternatives to its use. Whereas, clause 2(2) of the
bill would have clarified the Minister's responsibility
to explicitly include the establishment of guidelines,
in coordination with the provinces, for the protection
of, and law enforcement services for, children.
>Under section 43 there are no uniformly
applicable guidelines which exist to aid parents in
defining what is and what is not appropriate discipline.
The creation of law enforcement guidelines, in
conjunction with support services, would ensure that
parents are not needlessly criminalized with the repeal
of section 43.
Bill S-14 was being debated at second reading when it
died on the order paper with the federal election call
on April 25, 1997.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees the right to the security of the person
(section 7) and equal protection of the law without
discrimination on the basis of age (section 15).
According to section 1 of the Charter, limitations on
these rights can only be allowed if they can be
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Research has shown that the corporal punishment of
children is harmful. It leads to the injury and death of
children; it contributes to the level of violence and
aggression in society; it contributes to juvenile
delinquency and it normalizes violence as a way of
resolving conflict. Furthermore, research has shown that
it places children at risk of bodily harm and death.
Therefore, a limitation of children's rights such as
section 43 cannot be justified.
In 1989, Canada became a signatory to the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since that time
Canada has come under international criticism for
failing to repeal section 43 of the Code which is in
conflict with section 19 of the UN Convention. In 1995,
the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended
that corporal punishment in the home and elsewhere be
prohibited, and requested that Canada reconsider section
43.
United
Kingdom
It was a great privilege to represent our
country and parliament at the Commonwealth Parliamentary
Association visit to the United Kingdom this year.
Twenty countries were represented, and I was one of 26
delegates, eleven of which were women. This was the
largest number of women represented in the history of
the association.
It was clear from the beginning that all of the
delegates shared common interests and goals. As
Commonwealth members the respect for human rights, the
promotion of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law
are all held in high regard. Throughout the trip I
became aware of the modern day importance of the
Commonwealth. It serves as a link to Canada's history,
and as a source of information and experience to its
members.
The general meeting was an opportunity to become
acquainted with our colleagues, and to visit some
surrounding areas. Our first stop took us to London, and
Westminster Palace, the birthplace of Parliamentary
democracy. We toured Westminster, and were given the
opportunity to attend the first question period in both
the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. I was
personally delighted with the commitment The Rt. Hon.
Tony Blair made to the Commonwealth, and more
particularly to the countries in the greatest need of
help from the United Kingdom. Also included in the
London segment were a series of seminars about the
institutions and procedures in Commonwealth countries.
Next was a road trip to Oxford, Cardiff, Wales and to
the Island of Jersey. Our visit to Oxford, and more
particularly to the site of the university was a unique
glimpse of Great Britain's oldest university, and of the
historical aspects of that institution. I was impressed
with the Queen Elizabeth House which is the venue for
Commonwealth studies, and affords the opportunity for
members of the Commonwealth to further their knowledge
of the institution, while engaging in studies aimed at
helping emerging Commonwealth countries.
Our trip to Cardiff was of particular interest. Once
a site of slums and high unemployment Cardiff is coming
to life again. Its port, once the heaviest used in the
world, is now the site of a major redevelopment project.
Upscale housing, combined with social housing is being
built along the waterfront. New manufacturing jobs work
with high technology industries such as banking, and
telecommunication services.
On the island of Jersey the delegation was the guest
of the Jersey Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary
Association. Jersey is a beautiful island, and the
vistas of the Atlantic Ocean is a sight to be seen.
Personally, the highlight of the trip was a visit to one
of the many tapestries depicting the occupation of
Jersey by the Nazis during WWII. The tapestries were
exquisite pieces of art created by people who came
together to share the troubles of the war.
The highlight of the trip was the exchange of ideas
between the delegates. I believe that I have acquired
friends throughout the Commonwealth, whom I can call
upon for help, both as a politician, and as a member of
the human family.
Bill
C-46
Included in the last issue of FYI was an article on
Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code with
respect to the production of records in sexual offence
proceedings. This bill was the Department of Justice's
response to the Supreme Court's 5:4 decision which
enabled defence councils to use either the personal
diaries, or private papers of a complainant in a sexual
assault case, as evidence.
In that issue I noted the various benefits and
disadvantages to the passage of this bill. Bill C-46 was
a necessary amendment for without it complainants in
sexual assault cases may not have sought for fear that
such records would be used against them in court. Once
Bill C-46 comes in to effect on (DATE) both the rights
of the complainant and the accused will be protected in
law. For instance, the complainant will receive added
protection because defence councils will have to show
that private records will be relevant to an issue in the
trial. Given proof of this the Judge presiding over the
case will also review the request, and the papers, again
taking into account their relevance and the Charter
rights to privacy and equality of both the victim, and
the accused.
Bill C-46 may not be perfect, but it was rigorously
analysed and debated in both Houses, and it was awarded
Royal Assent on April 25, 1997, with the confidence that
the rights of both participants in future sexual assault
cases would be considered.
Update -
Bill C-68
Since the last issue of FYI, regulations under Bill
C-68, the Firearms Registration Act, have been debated
in both Houses of Parliament.
The bill will come into effect in January of 1998 as
planned.
|
