CONTENTS
Monday, June 10, 1996
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3532
Bill C-17. Motion for second reading 3536
Division on motion deferred 3545
Bill C-27. Motion for second reading 3545
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3547
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 3554
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3557
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3557
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3558
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3558
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3558
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3559
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3559
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3560
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3560
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3561
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3561
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3561
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 3562
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 3562
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 3563
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3564
Bill C-44. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3565
Bill C-300. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3566
Bill C-27. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 3569
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3569
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3573
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3574
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3577
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3580
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3583
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto
committee.) 3589
Bill C-26. Report stage 3589
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 3589
Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 3590
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 3598
Motions No. 5, 22, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57 to 64 inclusive, 72,74, 75, 89,
90, 91 3598
Motions Nos. 47, 48, 51, 52 3600
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 3604
Division on Motion No. 5 deferred 3604
Motions Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 31 3605
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 3609
Division on Motion No. 7 deferred 3610
Division on Motion No. 11 deferred 3610
Division on Motion No. 12 deferred 3610
Division on Motion No. 15 deferred 3611
Division on Motion No. 31 deferred 3611
Motions Nos. 8, 9, 14, 17 to 21, 23, 32 and 34 3611
Motions Nos. 33 and 35 3611
Division on Motion No. 8 deferred 3617
Division on Motion No. 9 deferred 3618
Division on Motion No. 18 deferred 3618
Division on Motion No. 20 deferred 3618
Division on Motion No. 21 deferred 3618
Division on Motion No. 23 deferred 3618
Division on Motion No. 32 deferred 3618
Division on Motion No. 33 deferred 3619
Division on Motion No. 34 deferred 3619
Division on Motion No. 35 deferred 3619
Motions Nos. 24 to 27, 39 and 66. 3619
Division on Motion No. 24 deferred 3622
Division on Motion No. 25 deferred 3622
Division on Motion No. 39 deferred. 3622
Division on Motion No. 66 deferred 3622
Motions Nos. 28 and 30 3622
Division on Motion No. 28 deferred. 3626
3527
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, June 10, 1996
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government provide a greater measure
of protection for individual property rights by amending the Canadian Bill of
Rights to read:
``1. Subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, every person has the
right to the enjoyment of that person's personal and real property and the right
not to be deprived thereof unless the person
(a) is accorded a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice, and
(b) is paid fair compensation in respect of the property, and the amount of that
compensation is fixed impartially, and is paid within a reasonable amount of
time after the person is deprived of their property.
2. Any person whose rights, as set out in section 1, have been infringed or
denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as
the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances''.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
introduce my private members' motion today for the first hour of
debate.
The purpose of my motion is very basic. It proposes to
strengthen and protect individuals' property rights. Motion M-205
reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government provide a greater measure
of protection for individual property rights by amending the Canadian Bill of
Rights to read:
``1. Subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, every person has the
right to the enjoyment of that person's personal and real property and the right
not to be deprived thereof unless the person
(a) is accorded a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice, and
(b) is paid fair compensation in respect of the property, and the amount of that
compensation is fixed impartially, and is paid within a reasonable amount of
time after the person is deprived of their property.
2. Any person whose rights, as set out in section 1, have been infringed or
denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as
the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances''.
In brief, the motion asks the government to amend the Canadian
Bill of Rights by adding two sections. The first section would allow
citizens the right to their property unless the person receives a fair
hearing in accordance with principles of fundamental justice. The
second section gives individual property owners the right to fair
compensation for their property within a reasonable amount of
time.
Canadians are fortunate to have an abundance of rights in this
country. Many of our rights are guaranteed in the Constitution. Our
Constitution guarantees language rights, native rights, women's
rights; however, it does not cover property rights.
Section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms provides that
everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and
the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the
principles of fundamental justice. Life, liberty and security of the
person are clearly basic values fundamental to all Canadians;
however, the protection of individual property rights is also of
major importance to Canadians. It affects all of us and is a
fundamental part of Canadian law and society.
Canadians believe in a free and democratic society. They believe
in fundamental justice and in the necessity for fairness. These are
values that unite Canadians. Most believe that property rights are
also among those basic rights in Canada. Yet property rights is one
value that does not have protection.
The protection of property is an important guarantee of freedom.
This right must be protected so that government cannot infringe on
that right without due process and without providing compensation
for the property. There is simply no reason that government should
have the freedom to expropriate private property without fair, just
and timely compensation. Yet there is no requirement in Canadian
constitutional law that removal of private property be covered by a
fair procedure to deal with compensation to the owner. There is no
guarantee of fair treatment by the courts, tribunals or officials who
3528
have the power over individuals or corporations. Motion M-205
addresses these concerns.
In the past there have been many attempts to deal with property
rights concerns. In 1960 John Diefenbaker introduced and passed
the Canadian Bill of Rights. The bill of rights includes property
rights, yet the guarantee of protection is only marginal at best.
Section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights states: ``The right of
the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment
of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due
process of law''. As well, section 2(e) provides that no federal law
is to be construed or applied so as to deprive a person of the right to
a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice for the determination of his rights or obligations. In short,
property rights are given very marginal protection under the
Canadian Bill of Rights.
I am talking about two documents. There is the Canadian Bill of
Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Members should pay attention to the one I am talking about
because each has a different application in law.
There is no guarantee that private property will not be removed
for public use and there is no provision that government must pay
just compensation when it expropriates property. Without rights of
due process and fair compensation, individual property rights are
quite meaningless.
There have also been attempts to entrench property rights in the
charter of rights and freedoms. Prime Minister Trudeau argued
vigorously and repeatedly for inclusion of property rights in the
charter of rights and freedoms. When Mr. Trudeau was justice
minister in 1968 he tabled a Canadian charter of human rights
which included the protection of property rights. The next year, as
prime minister, Trudeau wrote that the charter should protect the
right of the individual to the enjoyment of property. Then in 1978,
Trudeau's constitutional amendment bill included a clause
representing fundamentally the same protection he had suggested
10 years earlier. In 1980 Trudeau attempted to include a property
rights clause in the proposed charter.
(1110 )
In addition, as Minister of Justice, our current Prime Minister
supported Trudeau's attempts to include property rights in the
charter of rights and freedoms. The Prime Minister described
property rights as ``a central value of our society and an essential
ingredient for the charter, a right which all Canadians should have
regardless of where they live in our country''. I hope the Prime
Minister will stand by his words and give full support to this
motion.
Finally in 1981 Pierre Trudeau made a last gasp attempt to
include property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. In the end, after 13 long and frustrating years, property
rights were left out of the charter and Canadians were denied
property rights when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982.
The issue did not end there. In 1988 the House voted
overwhelmingly to support a motion that proposed the 1982
Constitution Act be amended in order to recognize the right of
enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof,
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice and
in keeping with the tradition of the usual federal-provincial
consultative process. This was passed in this House with a majority
of 108 who supported the motion versus 16 members who opposed
it. Property rights were subsequently proposed for inclusion in the
revamped charter of rights and freedoms in 1992.
The government proposed amendments to the charter to
guarantee property rights and to ensure that individual Canadians
were allowed to own and hold property and not have it taken away
without due process of law and without fair compensation. Yet we
were again denied justice when property rights were removed from
the Charlottetown accord against the wishes of many Canadians.
The Charlottetown accord, as we all know, subsequently failed to
pass.
All of these attempts to entrench property rights in the charter
failed. The reason for their failure is that property rights are
considered by many to be a provincial responsibility. Legislation of
ownership of property is a civil matter and is the responsibility of
provincial governments.
In response, several provinces objected to entrenching property
rights in the charter as they felt it would step on areas of provincial
jurisdiction. Provinces such as Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and
Prince Edward Island objected to federal intrusion into provincial
jurisdiction over property and civil rights granted to them in the
BNA Act. These provinces feared it would limit their power to
make decisions and the cost of fair and just compensation to
individuals may have prohibited or restricted provincial decision
making power. I am talking about the charter here; my bill would
amend the bill of rights.
Provinces such as Prince Edward Island voiced concerns that if
they were forced to compensate individuals for their property to
build a road, a municipal park, expand a building or perhaps build a
casino as was the case in Ontario, then the costs of fair
compensation to the person who owns the land may limit the
government's ability to act.
However there is a silver lining. The good news is that Motion
M-205 avoids concerns about federal interference and
interprovincial jurisdiction because it applies to federal law and
operations of the federal government. It binds only the federal
government and holds it to a reasonable standard of fair and just
compensation in exchange for personal property. By amending the
Canadian Bill of
3529
Rights as opposed to the charter which applies only to federal law,
matters of provincial jurisdiction remain untouched.
Most provinces however support entrenchment of property
rights. Provinces such as British Columbia, Ontario and New
Brunswick have passed resolutions supporting inclusion of
property rights in the charter.
A 1987 Gallup poll showed 87 per cent support for increased
property rights protection. Canadians considered the right to own
and enjoy property of all kinds a fundamental right that should be
entrenched in law. In the poll, property rights were considered
equally as important as the right to life, liberty and security of the
person.
I am confident that if we conducted a poll today it would show
national support for guaranteed property rights protection at levels
at least as strong as they were nine years ago. Canadians have
grown more aware and have been more concerned for their rights in
the past few years than ever before.
As well many national organizations have also come out in
favour of greater protection of property rights. These organizations
include the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce and the Canadian Real Estate Association, to name but
a few.
(1115)
In addition, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, signed by Canada in 1948, commits Canada to protection of
property rights. Article 17 reads: ``Every one has the right to own
property alone, as well as in association with others. No one shall
be arbitrarily deprived of his or her property''.
Obviously property rights are fundamental to good government.
When people are treated fairly in accordance with principles of
fundamental justice and are fairly compensated for their property
when it is taken for the common good, then Canadians should
receive the respect and dignity fundamental to good government.
A number of other democratic countries, including the United
States, Germany, Italy and Finland have already taken the lead in
property rights legislation. For example, the fifth amendment to the
United States constitution adopted in 1791 provides that the federal
government cannot deprive anyone of life, liberty or property
without due process of law. It also stipulates that private property
cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. The 14th
amendment to the U.S. constitution adopted in 1868 extended these
restrictions to state governments.
Canada is one of many countries with a high percentage of home
owners and land owners, yet Canada alone among the
industrialized nations does not grant some form of constitutional
protection to property ownership. The time has come for Canadians
to be afforded the protection agreed to almost 50 years ago in the
UN. Individual Canadians must be allowed to own and hold
property and not have it confiscated without due process of law and
without fair compensation.
Property rights are not just some kind of abstract idea for debate
on the floor of this House. Property rights for many in rural areas
means holding on to the family farm. When government
expropriates property from individuals, owners must have the right
to be compensated at fair market value.
Motion No. 205 considers giving Canadians the security that
their home and their possessions are theirs and theirs alone. This
motion is about giving Canadians the rightful protection of their
own property. As it stands, these rights are only protected by
common law. However, common law can be superseded by a
statute at any time. The government can easily pass a law requiring
certain lands or houses or goods to be surrendered to the state and
that no compensation be paid. If one owned one of these properties,
one would have no recourse if the government were to take it away.
Any valid statute can expressly say that no compensation is
payable when property is expropriated. This is wrong. There is no
constitutional guarantee for compensation and the power of
government in this area is absolutely unlimited. As it stands, the
rights of the individual are secondary to the powers of the state and
that is wrong.
Without the guarantees provided in my motion, the law gives
governments the right to pass legislation which removes private
property without providing compensation in return. The
fundamental protection of property and contract rights must take
precedence over government powers. Federal laws must not
override individual property rights. The government must not be
able to compensate for private property without fair compensation.
In circumstances where it is necessary for an individual to
surrender property, this motion would ensure that property could
not be taken except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice.
It is my hope that the provinces will take responsibility within
their jurisdictions to guarantee Canadians living within their
borders the rights and freedoms that I am offering at the federal
level. Canadians can rest assured that this motion will strengthen
individual property protection.
Motion No. 205 will not diminish rights Canadians already have
or prevent the government from carrying out its duties for the
common good of the nation. Government is supposed to be there to
serve the people. Too often the reverse is the case and people are
put in the position of serving government. My motion sets right
3530
this wrong to ensure that individual rights are there and they are
protected.
(1120 )
Government has the ability to protect people, but often the will
to protect those people is not there. It is long overdue for this
government to set the record set and put the individual Canadian
first.
The right to hold and enjoy property provides one of these
checks against undue concentration of power in government at any
level. Government must defend the rights of the people, not take
them away.
Motion No. 205 would not protect individuals from
expropriation. However, it would guarantee that expropriation
would be carried out in a fair and reasonable manner. It would
protect against government deciding arbitrarily what compensation
should be paid, if any.
With my motion, implementation of property rights' protection
would be straightforward. It would give Canadians their rights and
protection without requiring a formal constitutional amendment.
Amending the charter of rights and freedoms would require the
support of two-thirds of the provinces and 50 per cent of the
population, which is clearly tough. However, by amending the
Canadian Bill of Rights it could be done right here in this House.
As we have said in the past, property rights cross all party lines
and are represented on all sides of the House as a value to be
cherished and to be protected. Protection of these rights have been
supported by all sides of the House. Canadians are concerned now
more than ever that their individual property rights must be
protected.
In conclusion, the protection of individual property rights is a
fundamental freedom which must be protected. This is not a
partisan issue but a matter of fundamental justice. It is my hope
that members of the House will give representation to their
constituents when they vote for this motion and vote for property
rights.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion
brought forward by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.
The motion proposes that the Canadian Bill of Rights be changed
by modifying the existing provisions on property rights. The
Canadian Bill of Rights currently contains provisions protecting
property rights. Section 1 recognizes the right of the individual to
life, liberty, security of the person, the enjoyment of property and
the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.
This right is already protected by the Canadian Bill of Rights. It
is also protected at the federal level by statute and common law. It
is important to remember that the Canadian Bill of Rights applies
only to the federal government, unlike the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms which applies to all levels of government.
It is also important to remember that the Constitution assigns
much of the responsibility for regulating property to the provinces.
In fact, section 92(13) of the Constitution Act provides that the
provinces may exclusively make laws relating to property and civil
rights in the province.
That is not to say that the federal government cannot legislate in
ways that affect property, but its jurisdiction is limited in these
respects. Federal statutes do not regulate the disposition of
property. However, these statutes have been designed to ensure that
people are treated fairly. These laws provide for fair procedures
and for fair compensation where property rights are affected.
In addition, common law provides innumerable protections for
property rights. Property rights are a fundamental part of our legal
system and the law provides, in many ways, for their recognition.
For example, there is the common law presumption of
compensation where someone is deprived of property. On the
whole, the average person in Canada enjoys a very high level of
protection for property rights under the statutes and common law
applicable at the federal level, including the provisions of the
Canadian Bill of Rights. I venture to say that this is generally true
at the provincial level as well.
(1125 )
In support of the motion, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni
mentioned that in the protection of property rights one would be
protecting the family farm and one's home, but these are clearly
areas that would be regulated by provincial legislation, as is done at
this time.
All this protection of property rights reflects the value that
Canadians place on property rights. The right to own a home, a car,
other possessions is very basic to our way of life. The right to use
and dispose of property is also fundamental, although we recognize
these are not unlimited rights, something I will come back to later.
Property rights are ingrained in our legal system. In fact, one of
the premises of our legal system is the right to own and dispose of
property. Our laws, whether legislated or judge made, are replete
with examples of rules concerning the ownership and use of
property. For example, laws concerning real property, that is lands
and buildings, contain many rules protecting both purchasers and
vendors. In most provinces these rules have been built into statutes
regulating the purchase and sale of property.
When I consider the broad range of legislation and judicial
precedent that protects property rights, it is not clear to me that
3531
further protections are necessary in the Canadian Bill of the Rights.
Taking that into account, it is important to reflect on what the
proposed amendment would actually do.
It would single out property rights from all other rights in the
Canadian Bill of Rights for special protection. It would only amend
the property rights provision, not the other rights protected in the
Canadian Bill of Rights. I do not understand why we would want to
do this, why we would want special protection for one set of rights
and not for others that are also basic to life in Canada.
It would establish a hierarchy of rights in the Canadian Bill of
Rights which I do not think would be appropriate. Each of the
rights in the Canadian Bill of Rights is of equal importance.
The Canadian Bill of Rights is historically significant. It
represents one of the first steps toward a constitutionally
entrenched bill of rights. Just over 20 years after the Canadian Bill
of Rights was enacted constitutional protections were provided in
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since then our
energies have been focused on it.
I do not think we should be revisiting the Canadian Bill of
Rights. If we do we would be inviting all other kinds of
amendments. We spent a great deal of time debating the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We saw fit to adopt the charter
and I do not think we should let ourselves be drawn back into these
debates in the context of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
The charter has had significant impact on Canadian society and
will continue to do so. We should continue to focus our energies on
the charter and its implementation.
I spoke earlier about how the right to own and dispose of
property is not an unlimited right. I also mentioned that we have
many laws that regulate the ownership and use of property in
Canadian society. Municipal laws, environmental laws, laws
regulating incorporation and the operation of limited companies,
laws regulating the division of family property, succession and
estate planning laws, personal property security laws are just some
of the myriad of laws that affect either the ownership or the use of
property.
It is difficult to think of laws that do not affect or touch on
property in one way or the other. When we realize this it is
incumbent on us to think carefully about the implications of
amending the property rights protection in a general human rights
document.
(1130)
The United States has had considerable experience with property
rights. Its early experience was not very good. Constitutional
property rights were used to prevent socially useful legislation such
as laws regulating the hours of work.
Later the courts adopted a more enlightened view. Still, attempts
to regulate the environment, trade in endangered birds and land use
have met with court challenges based on a conflict with property
rights and their bill of rights. This sort of general provision
complicated the regulation of a whole variety of areas very
germane and necessary to the public interest.
Another problem we can identify from the American context and
experience is that American courts have extended the concept of
property to embrace things not conceived of when property rights
were adopted.
It seems licences and government jobs are interpreted as forms
of property to which property rights provisions of the U.S. Bill of
Rights apply. Of course, Canadian courts have demonstrated they
will go their own way in interpreting the provisions of the charter
and are other human rights laws.
This is evident by many rulings of our courts across the land in
conjunction to applying the charter of rights and freedoms to the
Criminal Code and other statutes. It is apparent the Canadian courts
have taken a distinctly Canadian approach to the charter and basic
human rights laws.
However, the proposed amendments would leave us with
uncertainty about the meaning of property rights as they are
presently put forward by the member for Comox-Alberni and the
effect on a wide variety of laws that touch on property in one way
or the other.
At the federal level we have environmental laws, land use laws,
laws providing for establishment and operation of corporations and
the ownership and disposition of shares, laws on banking, laws on
bankruptcy and copyright laws.
Each of these laws touches in some way on the ownership and
use of property. Each of these laws serves an important public
purpose. I am concerned about what effect a general and broad
provision for property rights may have on these laws. I am
concerned that socially important legislation may be challenged in
the courts. If these are issues about design and the operation of such
legislation, they should be addressed by Parliament.
I recognize the good intentions behind this motion. Like the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni, I feel strongly about the importance
of property rights in our society and legal system.
However, as far as I am concerned we have more than adequate
protections in our statute law and in the common law for property
rights. I do not see the necessity for the proposed amendments
specifically to the Canadian Bill of Rights. Rather, I am concerned
about its impact.
3532
In light of the American experience, it is not clear how it
would be interpreted. It is far better that we continue to rely
on the extensive protections of property rights that already exist
in our law.
For reasons I have stated, whether it be concern of how a very
broad or loosely worded statement of rights would be interpreted
by the courts, whether it is the other concerns I have mentioned, I
respectfully disagree with this motion, although in general I share
the concern and support for property rights.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this motion put
forward by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, which deals
with property rights, essentially demanding that these rights be
included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(1135)
Before getting into the substance of this motion, I will say that I
am somewhat surprised to see our colleagues from the Reform
Party bring back this debate for the second time in this House. Not
that the debate on property rights or the rights themselves are not
important, quite the contrary. I will get back to this. In a way, this
motion shows the priorities of the so-called Reform Party, which
would deny the right of individuals to be what they are, be they
black or gay, as we saw during the debate on Bill C-33.
Denying this right would, for example, make it impossible for
some individuals recognized as gay or lesbian to work or cause
them to lose their jobs. Yet, if this gay individual manages to work
without anyone knowing his or her sexual orientation and to own
some property, our friends in the Reform Party will move heaven
and earth so that his or her property rights are recognized and
defended in the face of all opposition. So I am somewhat puzzled
as to that party's priorities.
That said, the property rights referred to in the motion are, of
course, important rights that have been recognized for centuries, I
would say, in our society. They lie at the very foundation of how
our society works in several areas, if one considers, among other
things, property taxes or the fact that the right to vote in school
council elections is linked to property rights, which have been
recognized and set out, again for several decades, in the laws
enacted by provincial legislatures. However, before we include
these rights in the charter of rights and freedoms, there are
questions we must ask. We must question the real intentions, the
motives behind this proposal.
If we include property rights in the charter of rights and if these
rights become immutable, it would not be a step forward but rather
a setback for our society. It would, in a way, bring us back to the
mentality prevailing in the last century, when property rights could
be used to thwart social progress or to prevent most members of a
group or population from moving forward.
I am convinced these property rights were demanded on several
occasions by wealthy landowners in South America and elsewhere
in the world. In three or four countries, most of the land was owned
by these people. I guess that, when the people in those countries or
regions rose up against this situation, landowners used their
property rights to argue that they had to keep the lands they owned,
thus forestalling any social progress for these groups of people.
Like my colleague from the Liberal Party, I pointed out that
property rights are important, basic rights that must be preserved
and which are indeed protected under our current legislation.
(1140)
Take expropriation, for instance. Our provincial legislation
provides a mechanism governing expropriation. Under this
mechanism, the government is required to give sufficient notice to
those being expropriated so they can assert their right to a fair and
equitable assessment of their property-this decision can be
challenged before the courts-and thus obtain fair compensation.
These are precisely the considerations set out in the motion put
forward by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. All this already
exists, is already being done.
I have not seen, in my riding or in Quebec, anyone take to the
streets or what not to ask for the property right to be strengthened.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, to oppose or compare
the property right to other fundamental rights enshrined in the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such as the freedom of
conscience and religion, the freedom of expression, the freedom of
association, the right to dissent, the right to vote, the right to life,
the right to equality, which are all rights designed to protect the
identity of individuals, is not really sound and valid.
How is a person's identity affected by the property right per se?
Does the fact of having property, or how much this property is
worth, give someone's identity greater value? I think distinctions
ought to be made between these fundamental rights.
I would also like to mention out that, as our friend from the
Reform Party pointed out, this idea of including the property right
in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom was raised on
several occasions in the past. In 1968, the former Prime Minister of
Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, had made it his thing. In 1978, the
idea resurfaced when a motion pertaining to Bill C-60 at the time
was defeated.
Again, in 1980, the federal government tried to introduce a new
guarantee regarding the property right. Once again, objections
were raised, which remain perfectly valid today. I am referring, of
3533
course, to the objections raised by the provinces. The fact of the
matter is that all provinces are opposed to incorporating the
property right in the charter of rights and freedoms, since this
would considerably restrict their capability to legislate in this area.
Take, for example, the environment: How could a provincial
government legislate in the environment sector if property rights
are enshrined in the Constitution? This would greatly impede
provincial action in this area. There are already enough
constitutional, administrative and federal-provincial hurdles as it
is. The Reform Party regularly raises these issues. I do not see the
need to add to this by passing such a motion.
Including property rights in the charter of rights could also have
enormous consequences on the legislation concerning marriage, as
was pointed out during a debate in this House two years ago.
(1145)
For example, what would happen in the case of a divorce if the
man went before the courts to have his property rights enforced,
thus going against Quebec's legislation which stipulates that, in the
case of a separation, the goods must be divided equally between the
man and the woman? Various applications of such a provision
could considerably affect the way our society currently operates.
These are, in short, the reasons why, two years ago, the official
opposition opposed the motion then tabled before this House, and
why we will again vote against this motion today.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are here today to debate and ideally to support and pass
Motion No. 205 respecting individual property rights.
While this is not a novel undertaking, its time may have come,
given that Canadian parliamentarians and others have been trying
to entrench a property rights amendment in the bill of rights and/or
in the charter of rights and freedoms going back to at least 1968.
While I find it difficult to follow in the footsteps of Pierre
Trudeau, it is not difficult to support what is the logical extension
of the bill of rights by amending it and providing a greater measure
of protection for individual property rights.
I can see no logical reason not to support the motion. Quite
simply, it transcends partisan politics. The history behind the
motion speaks to its non-partisan, apolitical past.
As it now stands there is little protection for a person's right to
own, use and enjoy property. What little protection there is can be
found in the Canadian Bill of Rights, Mr. Diefenbaker's historic
document.
The beauty of this motion is that it does not threaten some
provinces and special interest groups which argue against including
property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms because they
feel it intrudes into areas which are the exclusive jurisdiction of the
provinces. By using the bill of rights this issue is avoided and
provincial concerns are assuaged.
It is time to raise this issue from its dormancy, remove the fears
of some, particularly the New Democratic Party which can
extrapolate concerns where there are none, and give Canadians a
basic protection which for far too long has eluded us.
Pierre Trudeau tried several times to include property rights in
the bill of rights, then again in the proposed charter of human
rights, and then again he proposed them in a constitutional
amendment bill. This was all followed by a motion introduced in
the House of Commons by Tory MP John Reimer in 1987 on
property rights which the House supported in a major way with a
vote of 108 to 16.
In 1982 a property rights resolution was passed unanimously by
the B.C. legislature, followed by very similar support with a
resolution in the New Brunswick legislature in 1983 and the
Ontario legislature in 1986.
In 1987 the Canadian Real Estate Association commissioned a
poll which found that 81 per cent of Canadians considered property
rights were either very or fairly important. In a follow-up paper in
1991 the real estate association called for an amendment to the
charter to include property rights.
(1150 )
The deficiency in the bill of rights, let alone the charter, is
glowing in its lack of recognition of property rights. If we compare
this with the fifth amendment to the United States constitution
which calls for due process of the law and compensation with
respect to private property, we are primitive in Canada and sadly
unconscious of this basic fundamental right. Why we have
deprived Canadians of this inherent right confounds many
observers, among them constitutionalists and the courts.
If our concern is generated by a lack of a definition of property
we could only go to the Canadian law dictionary to help define it
for us. The dictionary breaks property into two forms: real
property, lands, tenements or any interest in buildings erected or
affixed to the land; and personal property, goods, chattels, effects
and the like.
3534
As it now stands, the government's power to pass legislation
through which it takes private property without providing
compensation is unlimited. Government can arbitrarily step in to
take private property without any kind of compensation. This is
outright scary in a country like Canada.
This has come home to roost twice in recent times, specifically
Bill C-22, now called Bill C-28, the Pearson airport debacle, and
Bill C-68, the firearms act. These two examples of trampling on
personal property rights would never have seen the light of day if
we had a property rights amendment.
It is inherently one's right to enjoy one's personal and real
property and the right not to be deprived of it unless the person is
accorded a fair hearing and is paid fair compensation for it. This is
hardly a radical concept, and should these two elements be
infringed it is not too much to ensure remedy through the courts.
This would be a check and balance against the tyranny of
concentrated power in government. There is a fundamental
interdependence between personal rights and liberties and the
personal rights in property. Property rights are a cornerstone of any
civilized society, the notion that you own yourself and your labour.
This motion will enrich Canadian society, protect individual
freedoms and protect the environment. People protect the
environment around them, their personal property. Governments
weigh political benefits of protecting the environment and
consequently personal property. It seems so patently unfair to
deprive Canadians of this fundamental premise in life. Let us not
allow this opportunity to slide by once again.
It is so fundamental an issue that it is difficult not to get
repetitive in debate on this issue. The opponents of entrenching
property rights will extrapolate potential scenarios unreasonably to
make their case. The crucial issue is to define property in a
practical working definition.
The fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States
specifically protects private property. Americans have lived with
this definition for over 200 years and it has stood the test of time.
Canada has every opportunity to define private property in a
Canadian context to bring us up to the same standard of protection
of private property as other western democracies. There is no
requirement in Canadian constitutional law that compulsory taking
of property be effected by a fair procedure or that it be
accompanied by fair compensation to the owner.
This motion would have the effect of extending private property
rights to non-natural persons such as corporations. For the federal
government to pass legislation such as the Pearson airport package,
which has the effect of nullifying contracts and agreements without
compensation, would require a vote of at least two-thirds of the
members of the House of Commons. The net effect would be that
the Liberal government could not single handedly achieve this
Pearson bill without other parties' support. This is an enlightened
provision on so fundamental an issue.
(1155)
In summary, I quote words presented in October 1995 to the
Canadian Real Estate Association. Mr. Speaker, you may recognize
the words because they are yours, the member for Edmonton
Southeast:
In countries where such rights are weak or non-existent, the arbitrary power
and special privileges of the elite increase and the power of the common man or
woman is diminished. Without the protection of due process, the ordinary
citizen is powerless in the face of a state that exists only to perpetuate and
strengthen it and/or its elite.
In the Soviet Union, for example, the individual can never say to the state or
its officers `this is mine and you cannot take it away from me'. Due process and
fundamental justice are but dreams to the residents of the U.S.S.R.
We know there has been a passage of time since that statement
was made. However, I think this is a very essential bill. There is a
reason the Reform Party has brought this up more than once.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion. The hon.
member for Comox-Alberni has proposed a motion that provides
for a greater measure of protection for individual property rights
with an amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights. We should
acknowledge the Canadian Bill of Rights is part of Canada's
longstanding commitment to human rights.
The bill of rights already protects an individual's right to the
enjoyment of property. Origins of Canada's human rights
movement can be traced to the desire to ensure that the atrocities
that occurred to millions of Jews, members of ethnic minorities,
political dissidents, people with mental and physical disabilities
and homosexuals could not occur in Canada.
People were stripped of their property rights, ghettoized,
imprisoned, forced into labour camps and murdered by the Nazis.
These terrible events had a profound impact on the social
conscience of the world and Canadians in particular. In response,
the United Nations drafted the UN Declaration of Human Rights
and the Parliament of the day enacted the Canadian Bill of Rights.
The Canadian Bill of Rights is a statute that has a
quasi-constitutional status. Many of the provisions of the bill have
been overtaken by specific provisions of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. As the charter does not have an explicit
section on property rights it can therefore be argued this provision
of the bill of rights still operates to protect property rights.
3535
The Canadian Bill of Rights states:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and
shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason race, national origin,
colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms,
namely:
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and
enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due
process of law.
It can be argued this provision provides the protection the hon.
member seeks. An individual cannot be deprived of property rights
except by due process of law. It should be remembered the bill of
rights applies only to federal laws. Unlike the charter, it does not
apply to provincial laws.
In addition to the protections offered to property rights through
the bill of rights, we have developed elaborate laws regulating and
protecting the ownership and enjoyment of property. For example,
real and personal property laws regulate the acquisition and
disposition of all kinds of property. These laws protect individuals
from fraud and other mistakes that may result in loss of property.
Over the years there has been an evolution in the definition of
property and in the protection of the right of the individual to enjoy
property. The federal Divorce Act and provincial and territorial
family law acts ensure that women are not deprived of their right to
a fair share of matrimonial property and assets regardless of who
has legal title.
(1200 )
The term ``property'' has taken on many meanings. In the United
States the constitutional right to the enjoyment of property has
been defined to include academic tenure, a driver's licence and
disability benefits. I am concerned that defining further individual
property rights could affect social benefits and the division of
assets under the Divorce Act.
Of course like all other rights the right to enjoy property is
subject to some limitations in our society. It is limited by laws that
regulate the use of property in the public interest. Land use,
planning and zoning laws may limit the type of building that can be
placed on residential lots. Environmental laws regulate everything
from the disposal of hazardous waste to the removal of trees. Laws
regulate the ownership of transactions in shares in limited
companies. Other laws regulate bankruptcy and the ownership of
land by non-Canadians, and the list goes on.
All of those laws impose real limits on the ownership and the use
of property and no one disputes that these are necessary limits.
These restrictions on the enjoyment of property must be kept in
mind when we look at amending the Canadian Bill of Rights.
The notion of property is far broader than real property. Given
the broad meaning that can be applied to real personal property, we
must be careful in considering an amendment to the existing
protection for property rights in a quasi-constitutional document.
The Americans, we know, have had some unfortunate
experiences with property rights in the context of their
Constitution. It should also be noted that women's advocacy groups
have had a number of concerns with the further entrenchment of
property rights. The notion that a man's home is his castle is a
disturbing concept to many women who have been denied their
share of family assets. It has only been a few years since a woman
was denied a share of the family farm she worked on for many
years.
We have moved beyond this case in providing statutory
protection for women, but we live in a complex society with many
interests and competing rights. From the division of the
matrimonial home to environmental and zoning bylaws, we must
recognize that rights are not absolute.
To conclude, I believe that property rights are adequately
protected in Canada in the Canadian Bill of Rights, in other statutes
and in the common law. There are more pressing challenges facing
the government than the need to provide additional protection for
property rights.
The government is committed to protecting our social safety net,
including the renewal of our health system while reducing the
deficit. It is working on opportunities for youth who are our future.
We are concerned with barriers that aboriginal people and people
with disabilities are facing. Let us concentrate on the more pressing
problems we are facing.
Yes property rights are important, but I believe they are
sufficiently protected in existing legislation, particularly in the
Canadian Bill of Rights. I cannot support this motion.
The Deputy Speaker: There is one minute remaining if there is
an hon. member from the Reform Party who wishes to speak.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
realize there is only one minute left. It is difficult to summarize
today's discussion.
The inclusion of property rights has been a bone of contention
for the Reform Party since its inception. We believe that people do
have the right to own property and to enjoy it in a peaceful way. It
was one reason many people asked those who put together the
Charlottetown accord to please consider the rights of law-abiding
citizens to enjoy and use their own property without being deprived
of it without due process of law.
Members should consider what it means not just to be the master
of their own house but the owner of that house, that when they are
sitting in their living rooms or cottages, whatever the case may be,
to know that they have the right to do that, the right to enjoy their
property and the right to own it.
3536
Property rights is one thing people take for granted in Canada.
They assume they have it, but this motion would ensure they had it
under the protection of the law.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order
Paper.
_____________________________________________
3536
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1205)
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-17, an act
to amend the Criminal Code and certain other acts be read the
second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal affairs.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to introduce second reading debate on Bill C-17.
Bill C-17 was originally introduced as Bill C-118 on December
14, 1995. At that time it was pointed out that it completed a series
of significant criminal law reforms begun in June 1994 with the
introduction of a similar bill, Bill C-42. Most of Bill C-42, now the
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1994, was brought into force on
February 15, 1995 with the remainder on April 1, 1995.
Historically, bills containing general Criminal Code
amendments were introduced on a regular basis. However when
Bill C-42 was being debated, it was noted that the last such bill was
introduced in 1985. Therefore a commitment was given on behalf
of the Minister of Justice at the time by the hon. member for
London West to return to the previous pattern of periodically
updating the criminal law. Bill C-17 is a product of that
commitment.
Bill C-42 was well received and the Minister of Justice was
asked by his provincial and territorial colleagues as recently as
earlier this month at the annual meeting of federal, provincial and
territorial Ministers of Justice to get on with producing the follow
up bill to continue the development begun with Bill C-42.
This follow up bill which, if passed, would be known as the
criminal law improvement act, 1996, focuses mainly on the
Criminal Code. It also contains amendments to the Canada
Evidence Act, the National Defence Act, the Seized Property
Management Act and the Supreme Court Act.
The summary of the bill indicates that in developing this bill we
have taken great care to obtain the input of those who have the
greatest knowledge and hands on experience with our criminal
justice system. The amendments in the bill originate from
proposals made by the criminal law section of the Uniform Law
Conference of Canada, from the former Law Reform Commission
of Canada, from numerous judges of provincial and federal courts,
from members of the bar, from the Canadian Association of Chiefs
of Police, from the Canadian Police Association, the frontline
officers, and from federal and provincial justice departments and
officials.
There are also amendments which were suggested by other
sources. For example in a letter to the Minister of Justice, Child
Find Canada noted that authorizations for wiretaps cannot be
obtained for certain abduction offences. As a result Bill C-17 will
amend the definitions of offence in section 183 of the Criminal
Code to include these abduction offences. Wiretaps will then be
available.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities adopted a resolution
aimed at making it easier for police to enforce the offence of
obstructing persons in public places by loitering. As a result Bill
C-17 will amend section 175(2) of the Criminal Code to make it
easier for police to provide evidence in relation to loiterers who
obstruct persons in public places.
The Canadian Bankers Association wrote the Minister of Justice
indicating its concerns regarding the increasing number of high
tech crimes involving credit cards and computers. The Insurance
Bureau of Canada along with the Canadian police community
pointed out that passengers in automobiles taken without the
owner's consent could not be charged with joy riding as the code is
currently drafted.
We appreciate it when concerned citizens tell me the problems
they have identified with our criminal law. We are pleased to be
able to address some of these concerns in this bill. Responding to
the problems pointed out by the criminal justice professionals and
the Canadian public can only enhance confidence in our criminal
justice system. Indeed enhancing public confidence in our criminal
justice system is one of the principal objectives of this initiative
and of this government.
In Bill C-17 we also seek to make the Criminal Code provisions
more cost-effective and more efficient, to implement or achieve
compliance with court decisions, fill perceived gaps in the
Criminal Code, to take advantage of advances in computer
communications and video technology, to improve court
procedures and to ensure greater fairness to the participants in the
procedural process.
(1210 )
I am confident these proposals will result in a more cost effective
system of criminal justice, without detracting from the fundamen-
3537
tal fairness of our criminal justice system. Modernizing and
streamlining our criminal law is particularly important in these
times of fiscal restraint. We are all being asked to do more with
less. This requires that scarce court resources be allocated wisely. It
requires that available resources be devoted only to procedures that
serve useful purposes.
We must do what we can to reduce pressures on justice budgets.
This applies not just to the costs that police, prosecutors and the
courts must bear, but to the legal costs associated with defending
criminal charges whether these costs are paid by the accused
persons or by legal aid.
In short, we are aiming at a smaller, more focused criminal
justice system. The improvements proposed in this bill will take us
a long way toward that goal.
One of the ways to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
the Criminal Code is to modernize certain in court and out of court
procedures. For example, as it stands now, a peace officer who
gives a notice or serves a document on an accused person or
witness has to seek out a commissioner for taking oaths in order to
swear out an affidavit. The only alternative, and it is even worse, is
for the officer to appear as a witness in court to testify to that
routine procedure. This is necessary, notwithstanding that the
action is almost always uncontested in court.
With the amendment proposed in clause 2 of the bill, the peace
officer would be able to prove the notice or service simply by
making a statement in writing that he or she served the document or
gave the notice. One province estimates that this simple
amendment may save up to half a million dollars. More important,
scarce police resources will be kept out of the court houses so that
more time can be spent keeping our homes and streets safe.
Other amendments seek to take advantage of modern
technology. For example, we will permit more court proceedings to
be carried out using video conferencing technology. For bail
hearings and non-testimonial portions of preliminary inquiries and
trials, we will permit the proceedings to be conducted using closed
circuit television between the place of confinement of the accused
and the court.
Bill C-17 also seeks to improve trial procedure. Continual
interruptions of the trial to resolve procedural issues can disrupt the
orderly flow of evidence. In this age of court TV and all-news
networks, most of us know what sidebars are. We know how
tedious it can be to send out the jury while the lawyers wrangle
with the judge.
Amendments to Bill C-17 will encourage lawyers to sort out
more issues at pretrial conferences. For example, clause 73
proposes an amendment to section 625(1) of the Criminal Code to
authorize a judge to hold a conference to deal with matters that, to
promote a fair and expeditious hearing, would be better decided
before the start of the proceedings and to make arrangements for
decisions on those matters.
What might these matters be? This amendment reflects a
recommendation made by the former Law Reform Commission of
Canada in a study called ``Trial within a Reasonable Time''. The
study stated that using the pretrial conference to allow the court to
exercise control at an early stage would have clear benefits for
bringing cases to trial within a reasonable time.
It suggested that many issues could be dealt with before trial.
These included: whether the accused or the prosecutor intended to
raise any matter capable of being dealt with by way of pretrial
motions and arrangements for determining these motions; whether
any party intended to raise any matter that would normally be dealt
with in the absence of a jury and arrangements for hearing and
determination of these matters; and whether an agreed statement of
facts could be prepared or whether either party was prepared to
make any admissions. These are examples of things that if sorted
out as early as possible would expedite the trial.
(1215)
Another amendment proposed by the Law Reform Commission
would explicitly provide authority for the trial judge to confer with
the prosecution and defence on matters that should be explained to
the jury and the instructions that should be given to assist the jury
in its deliberations. The Law Reform Commission noted there is
nothing to prevent judges from doing this now, but it has not been
common practice.
Three reasons were given for this proposal. First, it would enable
counsel to fully inform the judge of its views of the facts and the
law. Second, it would permit counsel to prepare its arguments
based on the legal principles on which the jury would be instructed.
Third and perhaps most important, it would reduce counsel's
objections to the charge, thereby reducing objections after the fact
both at trial and on appeal. This change would accelerate the trend
to develop standard jury instructions, which many believe will
reduce the number of successful appeals.
Bill C-17 contains another amendment relating to jury trials.
Jury trials are becoming lengthier and more complex. If during a
trial a juror becomes indisposed or for any other reason is unable to
continue, the code provides that the trail can continue as long as the
number of jurors does not fall below 10.
What happens if a juror becomes indisposed or otherwise is
unable to continue before the trial, that is before the jury has begun
to hear evidence? Presently the only options are to stop the
proceedings and hold another trial or to continue the trial and hope
the other jurors do not become indisposed. This bill will provide a
welcomed alternative. It will permit the replacement of a juror as
long as the jury has not begun to hear evidence.
3538
Bill C-42 made some changes aimed at improving efficiency
through the use of technology. This bill continues that trend. I have
already mentioned that provisions which will broaden the use of
closed circuit television or similar technology on other proposed
amendments take advantage of modern technology by permitting
more warrants to be obtained using telephone or fax machine. It
will also be possible for peace officers to lay informations by fax,
and fax copies such as summons, warrants or subpoenas will be
admissible as if they were the originals.
More changes of this kind are anticipated. My officials are
working with provincial officials to determine what changes are
needed to allow cases to be processed as much as possible outside
the courtroom and to permit procedural functions to be carried out
in a less labour intensive fashion.
A number of proposals in Bill C-17 relate to arrest, pretrial
release and other matters involving police practices and
procedures. These will enable the police to make better use of our
shrinking police and court resources. For instance, we will permit
police to release an arrested person on certain conditions relating to
firearms, alcohol and drug use and reporting. If the police believe
these conditions are needed the accused must be detained in
custody until a hearing before the justice of the peace can be
arranged. However, there is often agreement between the
prosecutor and defence counsel on conditions, and the justice
simply affirms the conditions accepted by the accused.
There is another extension of amendments adopted in Bill C-42
which permitted the release of an accused who was prepared to
abide by certain other conditions. The earlier changes have reduced
unnecessary pretrial custody for many accused persons. Police are
able to spend more time on the beat preventing crime or detecting
offenders rather than waiting in the corridors of courtrooms or
police station lock-ups.
Court costs and legal aid costs have also been reduced. However,
it has been observed that Bill C-42 provisions are not being used as
often as they could be due to the absence of the three conditions
now being proposed.
Another kind of change that will lead to a more effective, more
efficient and less expensive criminal justice system is directed at
trial procedures applicable to certain offences.
Presently the offences of unlawful confinement, break and enter
of a non-dwelling house, being unlawfully in a dwelling house,
forgery and uttering a forged document are indictable offences
solely. This means that regardless of the seriousness of the offence
or the circumstances of the offence the case will be tried in a
superior court. It means that a preliminary inquiry will be held. It
means a police officer will have to appear not only for the trial but
for the preliminary hearing. It means witnesses will have to appear
twice. As a result, the time and expense of dealing with these
offences frequently are completely out of line with the severity of
the offence.
(1220)
For example, forgery could involve merely a forgery of a $50
cheque. Nevertheless, to convict the accused, the system permits a
preliminary inquiry and makes all the related demands on the
police and witnesses. As a result, the police tell us they expend
huge resources to deal with minor offences. Therefore, in light of
their need to allocate resources wisely these offences may not even
be pursued.
In Bill C-17 the choice of trial procedure, summary conviction
or indictable, would be given to the crown for these offences. With
this change the crown will be able to select a procedure more in
tune with the likely sanction. This will keep more cases in
provincial courts and relieve court congestion in the superior
courts. Witnesses, particularly victims, will have to testify only
once. The time needed to deal with these cases should be reduced,
which is important in order to adhere to the requirements of the
charter of rights and freedoms which mandates a trial within a
reasonable time.
The sentences given in most cases for convictions of these
offences are well within the summary conviction range. For
example, 18 months for an unlawful confinement offence and 6
months for the others. Although the present maximum term of
imprisonment for forgery offences will be reduced from 14 to 10
years, we do not anticipate that any of these changes will reduce the
sentences for these offences. It is our view that having a statutory
maximum sentence more in line with the sentences actually
imposed increases the respect for the judicial system because it
reduces the feelings of the convicted that they have gotten away
with something after receiving a sentence so far removed from the
maximum available.
A number of proposed amendments have to do with searches and
seizures. With the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the
courts are increasingly scrutinizing actions by law enforcement
personnel in investigations relating to offences. Perhaps the area
most subject to attention relates to searches and seizures. Often
whether a conviction or an acquittal will result depends on whether
the court will admit evidence seized in a search. The charter
guarantees everyone the right to be secure against unreasonable
search and seizure.
With these amendments in Bill C-17 we seek to ensure that the
police are able to do their jobs in a way which will conform to the
charter. Some proposals would adjust provisions applicable to the
property seized under a warrant or other statutory or common law
authority. These are aimed at reducing the administrative burden on
law enforcement agencies and persons from whom property has
been seized.
3539
Other proposals clarify that warrants for searches of computer
systems can be obtained. They are modelled after provisions found
in other statutes which explicitly deal with searches in relation to
computers.
As mentioned already, other proposals would make it possible to
obtain warrants using fax or telephone communications.
There are other proposals codifying the circumstances under
which police and others performing statutory duties can search and
seize without a warrant. For example, where exigent circumstances
clearly exist, evidence of criminal activity in the plain view of
police and others with law enforcement responsibility carrying out
their lawful functions would also be subject to seizure and control
under the criminal code.
When it would be necessary to execute a search warrant at night
the justice would be able to authorize this only when satisfied there
are reasonable grounds to do so. A justice would also have the
authority to permit the sale or destruction of perishables or other
things which depreciate rapidly.
(1225 )
Finally, a warrant would be available to obtain any handprint,
fingerprint, footprint, foot impression, teeth impression or other
print or impression provided that the criteria generally needed to
obtain a search warrant exist and that it would be in the best
interests of the administration of justice to do so. This provision
fills in a gap between the warrant for tangible evidence and the
DNA warrant provided for in Bill C-104, which was enacted last
session.
Obviously this bill is very wide ranging. It covers a wider range
of matters than I have indicated in these remarks. Over 140 clauses
of this bill contain many provisions that are technical and may not
attract attention in the course of this debate, but along with those
outlined they are all aimed at improving the administration of
criminal justice in Canada and the confidence the public must have
in our criminal law.
This bill has very broad support, including the provinces and
territories, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the
Canadian Police Association. It implements recommendations
brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice by many
disparate groups of Canadians, including judges, child care
authorities and the Uniform Law Conference of Canada.
Therefore I call on all parties in the House to support Bill C-17 to
improve the administration of criminal justice in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, right off the bat I am going to make a liar of all those who
say that the opposition is here for the sole purpose of criticizing and
tearing apart the government's bills because, on the whole, the
official opposition is in agreement with the amendments made to
Bill C-17.
In effect, this bill amends the Criminal Code and several related
acts, such as the Canada Evidence Act, the Customs Act, the Excise
Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures
Act, the Narcotic Control Act, the National Defence Act, the
Seized Property Management Act and the Supreme Court Act.
Clearly, this is an extremely broad bill, a bill that brings a breath of
fresh air to a number of the aforementioned acts.
The proposed amendments range from a minor correction to the
creation of new offences, particularly with respect to fraudulently
using credit cards or fraudulently obtaining computer services.
They complete the update of the Criminal Code undertaken by Bill
C-42, passed on December 15, 1994.
Other measures are designed to modernize the legal system, by
allowing general use, under certain conditions, of modern means of
communication, such as closed circuit television, the telephone and
the telecopier or fax machine. They will also help to reduce the cost
of justice and increase the effectiveness of the courts by making it
unnecessary to move inmates around, for example, or by making it
easier to obtain search warrants.
This bill, as I have already said, creates mixed or hybrid charges,
that is to say ones which could involve either summary conviction
or indictment. These new hybrids are: break and enter into a place
other than a dwelling-house, forceable confinement, unlawful
presence in a dwelling house, forgery and uttering. This will have
the effect of eliminating the necessity of a preliminary
investigation prior to the hearing, when the Attorney General's
prosecutor has opted to proceed via summary conviction. This will
result in substantial savings of time and money, particularly legal
aid fees. Pre-trial delays will also be reduced.
I feel that these are amendments which will be welcomed by all
Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, since it is obvious that the longer
a procedure takes, the more it will cost. The purpose of this bill is
to shorten these delays.
As well, the indictment approach will be reserved for only the
most serious crimes, as decided by the crown prosecutor. Thus,
jury trials will be less common and the process will be shortened
for cases deemed to be of lesser severity.
(1230)
Some of the proposals, however, immediately raise some
questions, but I must point out immediately that these criticisms do
not jeopardize our support of this bill, they merely raise certain
legitimate concerns. It is, for instance, proposed to amend the
provisions of the Criminal Code concerning impaired driving, in
3540
order to make it harder to use a defence that contests breathalyser
readings.
From now on, if the amendment is passed by this House, the
defence will have to produce evidence to show that the blood
alcohol levels of the accused at the time the offence was alleged to
have been committed did not exceed 80 milligrams of alcohol in
one hundred millilitres of blood. In other words, the reversal of
proof as we now know it. This amendment would put the onus on
the accused to prove his innocence. This position raises questions
about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In his effort to
prevent people from driving with a alcohol reading over 80
milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, is the minister not
running the risk of having innocent people charged?
It may be impossible for someone charged to establish that his
blood alcohol level was below 8o milligrams and thus avoid the
consequences of conviction, such as the loss of his driver's permit
for a year, as is the case in most provinces. Here again, is this
amendment justified?
This provision would certainly be contested in the courts, right
up to the Supreme Court, because the consequences are extremely
serious. We have only to look at the number of court cases and legal
challenges to this provision. If the past is any indication of the
future, clearly there will be cases in the lower courts that will go as
high as the Supreme Court for clarification of this provision of the
bill, if the bill is passed as it stands, of course. Rest assured that we
will follow the consequences in law of this amendment with great
interest.
Another provision proposed would increase the number of
people detained. The court may order an accused to be held during
proceedings on additional grounds. It will now be permissible to
detain an accused for just cause, when detention is necessary, so as
not to undermine the public's confidence in the administration of
justice. At the moment, detention pending the end of proceedings is
permissible only to ensure the accused's presence in court or to
protect the public. As we are trying to keep as few people as
possible in prison, I raise the question: Is it warranted to add these
additional grounds?
Furthermore, it is up to us members to decide the grounds for
detention. The expression ``just cause'' in the bill, like ``public
interest'', opens the door to court interpretation, to a hundred
uncertainties that will not be resolved until the Supreme Court
establishes the meaning of these expressions. So, why, with this bill
before us, not establish more guidelines to limit interpretation and
achieve the objective we are aiming for with this bill?
Another proposed amendment will give police forces additional
tools to find out who committed a crime by making it possible to
get a warrant allowing a peace officer to obtain any handprint,
fingerprint, footprint, foot impression, teeth impression or other
print or impression of the body in respect of the person, provided,
of course, that certain conditions are met.
The law already allows police to take samples of a bodily
substance from someone for genetic analysis. These provisions
also make it possible for an individual to prove that he or she is
innocent. I think this amendment can help the accused prove his or
her innocence just as much as it can help the prosecutor.
We suggest that this provision should be improved by making it
possible to photograph a person or part of his or her body. This
would help establish whether or not, for example, an accused has a
tattoo or other distinguishing marks. In a recent sexual assault
case-which, I am sure, hon. members remember-some children
claimed that their assailant had certain marks on his body.
(1235)
One simple way to verify if these children were telling the truth
would have been to obtain a warrant to photograph part of the
accused's body. This would have made it possible to determine if
the young people's accusations were justified and, as I said earlier,
it would have helped the accused as much as the prosecutor if the
information given by the children in this sexual assault case turned
out to be false.
Another amendment in this bill is aimed at making it easier to
prove that someone helped launder the proceeds from crime. I must
say right away that this is a step forward. We in the opposition have
sought and continue to seek a major change, or at least a tougher
attitude, in this regard, given that several countries consider
Canada as an ideal place to launder money. I think this amendment
is a step forward, but we will still need to look very seriously into
this issue at some point in time, to ensure that Canada does not
keep this unenviable title of crime money laundering paradise.
For the time being however, as far as the bill before us, Bill
C-17, is concerned, we suggest adding to the list of ways of
participating in the laundering of proceeds of crime the fact that a
person accepts that money be deposited in an account under his or
her name, while knowing or believing this money was derived from
a designated offence.
Recently, several people have received letters requesting
permission to deposit certain amounts in their banks accounts.
Again, this is a current concern. There was a piece on this in
L'Actualité a few months ago. Those who accepted later found
their bank accounts to have been emptied out. Certainly, there is
an element of voluntary blindness in accepting money from
some unknown source abroad, under the mere promise of an
eventual profit. But it did not pay off in the end, as the defrauder,
who had deposited money in their bank accounts, then took it
out, along with all their savings. This may be one of the means
used to hide and launder proceeds from crime and, as I said, I
think it should be provided for and included in Bill C-17.
3541
Other provisions complement existing provisions regarding
credit card forgery and unlawfully obtaining computer services.
For instance, it will now be illegal to possess or use a computer
password to unlawfully obtain computer services. We must keep up
with our times, and I think that the Criminal Code was in great need
of updating, from a legal point of view, to be in step with new
technologies, such as computer services.
Bill C-17 includes many amendments affecting existing acts. It
goes without saying that I cannot discuss all of them in the time
allotted to me, but I want to mention the main ones.
If the bill goes through, peace officers will be allowed to release
a person arrested with or without a warrant by imposing conditions
such as to abstain from possessing a firearm, to report at the times
specified in the undertaking to a peace officer or other person, and
to abstain from consuming alcohol or other intoxicating
substances. These conditions would be in addition to those which
peace officers may already impose. This provision will make it
possible to release more quickly people who normally had to be
taken before a justice of the peace within 24 hours, but who often
ended up spending the weekend in jail in areas where justices of the
peace and Crown attorneys are not readily available on weekends.
This is a fair measure which will benefit people living in regions,
including my riding of Berthier-Montcalm. I was a lawyer before
becoming a member of Parliament and I know that people in
regions are sometimes penalized in that regard. Bill C-17 will
improve the situation regarding weekend court appearances in the
regions.
These increased powers for peace officers should almost
eliminate the need for justices of the peace and Crown attorneys to
hold court appearances on weekends for the release of people,
when imposing usual conditions would ensure adequate protection
of the public.
(1240)
This will be greatly appreciated by the justiciable, but also by
taxpayers since, in the end, they are the ones paying for the costs
related to the legal system.
Another good amendment included in the bill would allow an
expert to testify by submitting a report, along with an affidavit or a
solemn declaration. This exception to the rule prohibiting written
testimonies will certainly be welcomed by expert witnesses, who
have a busy schedule and who may even have to testify in two
different places at the same time.
It will also be welcomed by taxpayers, given that an expert
witness if often asked to testify at a certain place and time and that,
for some reasons, the trial is postponed. The expert witness then
has to come back again, thus increasing costs. Thanks to this
amendment, experts will be allowed to submit their report, along
with an affidavit, thus saving time and money.
The bill also includes a provision that will please an accused who
fails to appear at the time and place stated in a notice for the
purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act. From now on, a
justice will be allowed to issue a warrant indicating a period during
which proceedings are suspended, to allow the accused to
voluntarily appear before a judge, thus avoiding arrest and
detention until his or her appearance before a justice of the peace.
This procedure should also apply when an accused fails to
appear before the court at any stage of the proceedings. Courts
currently take the warrant under advisement when the absence of
an accused seems justifiable or the situation could easily be
corrected. But the legality of this measure of suspending an order is
debatable and has the disadvantage that only the judge who ordered
the suspension may take the final decision.
Therefore, you can see that on the whole the official opposition
supports Bill C-17 now before us. But we have some concerns
about a few minor points. I think that in this bill the government
has shown itself to be open minded, that it has listened to those who
said the Criminal Code should be modernized.
Since we have gone this far, we could perhaps clarify the points
raised in order to prevent too broad an interpretation of the wording
used, among other things, so that accused cannot take their case to
higher courts, and even all the way to the Supreme Court, claiming
Charter violations, as I mentioned earlier. For all these reasons, the
official opposition will support the bill at this stage.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
address Bill C-17 and I must oppose this bill. Bill C-17 contains a
significant number of updates and improvements to the
administration of law which are long overdue and the Reform Party
supports this portion of the bill.
The efficiency of peace officers and courts would be aided
through a number of the amendments contained within Bill C-17.
Subclauses 4(6) and (7) of Bill C-17 will allow a peace officer to
provide a statement of service without having to seek out a justice
of the peace or notary to have the service sworn. This change will
improve police officers' efficiency and reduce the workload of
justices of the peace and redirect their expertise to where it is
needed.
Similarly subclause 145(5) and a number of subsequent clauses
of Bill C-17 will permit any peace officer to release an accused on
recognizance. Currently only the officer in charge can do so. This
3542
amendment improves police efficiency by negating the necessity to
bring in the officer in charge for a mere procedural action.
(1245)
Reform members support the changes in this bill that would
enhance the way the police and the courts would be able to conduct
their business. We also support the portion of the bill which
strengthens the proceeds of crime legislation by ensuring that
criminals do not retain the profits of their crimes, but we cannot
support Bill C-17.
We do not support Bill C-17 because we are vehemently opposed
to that portion of the bill which lessens the penalty for certain
offences. That the justice minister felt it was necessary to slip this
into an otherwise supportable bill is very regrettable in my eyes.
We oppose Bill C-17 because it places Canadians at risk through
continued Liberal leniency. The Reform Party will only support a
judicial system, and changes within that system, that places the
punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens and
their property ahead of all other objectives and considerations.
The justice minister has been less than forthright with Canadians
about the full impact of Bill C-17. The minister has touted the
merits of this bill in that it modernizes the law and streamlines
court proceedings, but he has been noticeably silent about the
reduction in penalties for certain very serious offences.
Although Reform supports the administrative changes contained
within Bill C-17, I would be remiss if I did not say that this bill is a
nebulous, inconsequential piece of legislation to the vast majority
of Canadians because it will be of little significance to the
enhancement of the safety of Canadians, their children and their
property.
Canadians are very concerned about their personal security and
that of their families. These administrative changes will do nothing
to protect Canadians from the murderers, rapists and other sadistic
criminals that roam our streets and enter our homes.
Bill C-17 will not stop serial child killer Clifford Olson from
applying for early release. Only a bill repealing section 745 of the
Criminal Code will keep Olson locked up where he belongs but the
minister has not brought in a bill of this nature.
Bill C-17 will not stop Robert Noyes from sexually molesting
another child. The former Ashcroft teacher admitted to abusing
more than 60 children. As a dangerous offender, he was sentenced
to an indefinite period of incarceration on 19 sex related charges
and now the justice system is turning him loose. The National
Parole Board has granted Noyes escorted temporary leave and if
this goes well, in nine months he will be eligible for unescorted
leave with day parole following. Only a bill like the one proposed
by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley
requiring the examination of sex offenders by two psychiatrists will
keep people like this locked up where they belong.
Bill C-17 will not alleviate Canadian parents' fears that their
children could be abducted, sexually molested or killed in any one
of our communities or on our streets. The justice minister's news
release at the time of the introduction of this bill stated these
amendments illustrate further progress on the government's safe
home, safe streets agenda. That is absolute nonsense. It is simply
not true. How do you make safer streets and safer homes by
reducing the penalties for crimes such as the forcible confinement
of individuals and being unlawfully in their homes? I simply do not
see it.
Canadians want substantive change within the justice system.
They want legislation that effectively enhances public safety. They
want legislation that sends a clear message to criminals that if you
are going to commit the crime you must serve the time. Canadians
want this legislation in the hope that it will deter ruthless thieves
from entering and destroying the sanctity of their homes.
Canadians want a bill which repeals section 745 of the Criminal
Code. They want the Minister of Justice to vote in favour of victims
and victims' rights. They do not want a minister that upholds and
protects the rights of criminals to the detriment of the law-abiding,
peace loving citizen.
Last year the minister voted against private member's Bill C-26,
which would have extinguished the right of first degree murderers
to a parole eligibility hearing after serving only 15 years of a life
sentence. Canadians do not want the minister giving killers this
so-called glimmer of hope. They want killers behind bars and they
want them there for a minimum of 25 years as the law originally
intended; not 15 years and not 20 years. Canadians
overwhelmingly want murderers behind bars for the full length of
their life sentences.
(1250)
What is the value of a human life to the justice minister, the
Prime Minister, the Liberal government? Is it just 15 years? That is
what they are telling the people of Canada. They are telling
Canadians their laws are enhancing public safety. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
August 12, the day Clifford Olson is eligible to apply for a parole
eligibility hearing, is rapidly approaching and the minister still has
not introduced a bill which will deny this serial child killer the right
of appeal after serving just 15 years of a life sentence. That is how
this justice minister is getting tough on crime. That is how he is
making our streets and our homes safer.
Olson is not the only murderer with a glimmer of hope to get out
before serving his full sentence. Ralph Ernest Malcolm Power is
eligible July 10 to apply for early parole on his first degree murder
conviction. In 1981, 28-year old Power, an ex-con out on
mandatory supervision, beat 20-year old Sheryl Gardner's face to a
bloody
3543
pulp with a hammer. He confessed that he was attempting to stun
her just a little so he could rape her. Power was arrested for the
murder of Sheryl after attempting to kill another woman.
The Minister of Justice should have brought in a bill that would
keep Clifford Olson, Ralph Power and many others behind bars.
Why is the Minister of Justice not listening to the victims of
violence and the Canadian Police Association? Why has the
minister not repealed section 45 of the Criminal Code? The
Minister of Justice should be dealing with crime first and then
administrative matters, not vice versa.
In the wake of the horrific crimes against Leslie Mahaffy and
Kristen French, capital punishment is resurfacing as a major issue
with Canadians. The evidence is growing that if Canadians were
given the opportunity to vote in a binding referendum on capital
punishment, an initiative supported by the Reform Party,
Canadians would choose to sentence our most ruthless and sadistic
killers, like Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson, to death. The
Liberal government refuses to give Canadians this right and this
opportunity.
Canadians also want the Minister of Justice to bring in
dangerous offender legislation. They want the minister to end
statutory release. They want the minister to end the automatic
release of prisoners after serving only two-thirds of their sentences
even when signs indicate these people will commit further crimes.
Melanie Carpenter who was kidnapped, raped and murdered is one
of the latest victims of this kind of Liberal thinking and mentality.
The minister has promised to bring in an omnibus bill which will
encompass these two initiatives, initiatives which would
significantly enhance public safety, but we have yet to see the bill.
Instead, all we have been given in the last year is Bill C-2 and Bill
C-42 which amend the Judges Act, Bill C-9 which reinstituted the
law commission, and now Bill C-17.
Bill C-27, which we support because it deals with child
prostitution and stalking, should have pre-empted all of these bills.
All Bills C-2, C-42, C-9 and now C-17 do is make life a little easier
for those involved in the justice system. They do not and will not
make Canadians safer.
In fact, Bill C-17 will give Canadians more reason to be
concerned about home invasions because the Liberal government,
through Bill C-17, has lessened the punishment for this Criminal
Code offence. Bill C-17 reduces maximum sentences and changes
strictly indictable offences to dual procedure offences.
The redesignation of offences from indictable to dual procedure
permits and encourages judges to consider those offences as less
serious and therefore permissive of lesser punishment to include
mere financial penalties. While most of these offences are
non-violent, with the exception of forcible confinement, they
involve intrusion into the sanctity of our homes and forgery which
may deprive our most vulnerable citizens, our seniors, of valuable
financial assets.
(1255 )
According to Statistics Canada, in 1994 break and enter
accounted for 15 per cent of all Criminal Code offences while 25
per cent of all Criminal Code offences were for property offences.
Eighty-one per cent of break and enters involved forced entry.
Property was damaged in 71 per cent of the cases and property was
stolen in 81 per cent of cases.
Instead of expressing concern and outrage over these figures, the
Liberal government is now saying these offences deserve a lesser
penalty. These offences, which infringe on the financial and mental
security of Canadian citizens, are going to be dealt with more
leniently because of Bill C-17.
Unbeknownst to Canadians, the Liberal government has been
slowly moving in this direction over the course of its mandate, a
direction we are opposed to because not only has it not been
sanctioned by Canadians, it may very well lead to an increase in
crime, not a reduction, which is what we in this party, as most
Canadians, seek.
A shift of this magnitude in how we punish-or should I say in a
politically correct manner, how we hold criminals accountable for
their actions-should be reviewed and then approved by the public.
Bill C-41 which passed a year ago introduced alternative to
incarceration. This portion of Bill C-41 was overshadowed by the
hate crime part of the bill which gave an added protection under the
law to a category of citizens, including those classified by sexual
orientation.
If asked today I am confident very few Canadians would known
that the Liberal government has provided the means for a whole
host of criminals, including sex and other violent offenders, to do
community work rather than spend time in jail.
It is most unfortunate Canadians were not aware of the full scope
of Bill C-41 which was described by the Canadian Police
Association in the following manner: ``Bill C-41 with few
exceptions is unwieldy, complicated, internally self-contradictory,
duplicitous and what is worse in all of it, completely unnecessary
for anyone of any knowledge of or use for the common law heritage
of Canada''.
The police went on to say: ``While it would attempt to codify
basic sentencing principles, eliminating this most basic judicial
discretion at that the same time it would bestow huge new
discretionary powers to a whole range of persons within the justice
system. The common thread in those new powers is that all are to
the benefit of the offender in the sense of non-custodial
consequences for criminal actions.
3544
``Where sentencing reform calls for protection this bill offers
platitudes, where it calls for clarity it offers confusion and outright
hypocrisy. It will almost certainly cause the already skyrocketing
criminal justice budget to expand further still.''
That was a statement made to the standing committee on Bill
C-41. I could not have better summarized this Liberal justice bill
nor the mentality or thinking behind it which is reflected again in
Bill C-17. What better words to use than those of the Canadian
Police Association, an authority to which the justice minister
readily turned to add credence to his gun registration bill.
Section 717 of Bill C-41, the Liberal's response to the
overcrowding in Canadian prisons, was the most contentious part
of the bill. Rather than attempt to reduce or prevent crime by
dealing with the causes of crime, something Reform has been
urging the government to do, the Liberals have decided to turn
prisoners loose, a sentiment which has been echoed by the former
head of corrections services, Mr. John Edwards and the head of the
parole board, Mr. Willie Gibbs.
We would not have objected so vehemently to this section of Bill
C-41 if the government had specified which offences may be
applicable to alternative measures. We could support the use of
alternative measures for specific non-violent offences to reduce
expensive court proceedings and incarceration. However, no such
specifications appeared in Bill C-41.
The Canadian Police Association and the Victims of Violence
recommended section 717 be amended to ``restrict the availability
of the program to persons who have committed less serious
offences and first time offenders''. Specifically reflecting the
opinions expressed by these witnesses, the Reform Party
introduced an amendment during the clause by clause
consideration of that bill to limit the use of alternative measures to
non-violent offences. Our amendment was defeated by the Liberal
majority on that committee.
(1300)
Alternative measures have been used for years by police officers
in this country. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has
cautioned the police to restrictively use their discretion in dealing
with offenders.
Fearing they could be violating an offender's right, the police are
strictly playing by the book in many cases in arresting, charging
and finally convicting an offender, whereas before if they picked
someone up for a minor violation, they may have dealt with the
matter informally, providing only a stern warning and exposing to
them the threat of being charged the next time should they violate
the law again.
I agree with the Canadian Police Association. We cannot limit
police discretion in this area by creating an expensive unnecessary
bureaucracy, such as that imposed by Bill C-41, which will
potentially allow violent offenders to go free under the guise of
alternatives to incarceration.
We cannot lessen the penalty for criminal offences as proposed
by the justice minister in Bill C-17 and say to the people we are
getting tougher on crime.
I draw to the attention of the House the sections of Bill C-17
which make it impossible for Reform to support this bill, a very
small portion of an otherwise supportable bill.
The existing laws dealing with forceful confinement of a human
being makes this offence an indictable offence with a maximum
sentence of 10 years which classifies this as a very serious offence.
If Bill C-17 passes unamended the severity of this offence will be
lowered significantly. The maximum penalty will still be 10 years.
However, it will become a dual procedure offence which may be
processed by either indictment or summary conviction.
This means that under a summary conviction procedure this
offence can be reduced to a maximum sentence of 18 months or
only a fine of up to $2,000. The criminals who held in confinement
a B.C. woman who was nine months pregnant could receive as little
as a fine under this new amendment.
Is this making our streets and communities safer? I do not see it.
I do not understand how. This Criminal Code amendment clearly
signals to the courts this type of offence is to be treated in a less
severe manner than is currently the case.
Admittedly, the Liberals may argue, the decision on whether to
proceed by indictment or by summary conviction is made by the
crown. The courts will undoubtedly be influenced by this
downward trend in sentencing.
Section 348(1)(e) of the Criminal Code regarding breaking and
entering for places other than a dwelling house will also be changed
to a dual procedure offence. The maximum sentence will be
reduced from 14 years to 10 years under indictment. Not only that,
it can be tried by summary conviction with a maximum penalty of
18 months or simply a fine. What does this say to society? What
does it say to the criminal element?
The offence of being unlawfully in a dwelling house, Criminal
Code section 349(1), has also been changed to dual procedure with
imprisonment up to 10 years or processed by summary conviction,
again with a maximum penalty of 18 months or simply a fine.
Currently unlawfully being in a dwelling house is an indictable
offence with a maximum imprisonment of up to 10 years. This is
another downward trend in sentencing and flies in the face of the
statement made by the justice minister that he is getting tough on
crime.
Similarly, section 367 of the code regarding forgery and section
368(1), uttering forged documents, will be amended to dual
procedure offences with imprisonment of up to 10 years or
processed by summary conviction whereas the current punishment
is indictable only with the imprisonment of up to 14 years. This is
another unacceptable downward trend in sentencing that lessens
3545
the penalty for serious crime which will not be lost on those who
prey on innocent people.
Canada is faced with rising crime rates, particularly violent
crime, rising fears regarding personal safety, escalating costs to
administer justice and to house prisoners and, to top it all off, a
growing debt which severely limits spending. The task of the
federal Minister of Justice to deal with these problems in unison
will be difficult but not insurmountable.
Bill C-17 is not at this time part of the answer. It does not address
the increase in crime in Canada and it does absolutely nothing to
confront the cause of crime.
Bill C-17 if enacted unamended will lend itself to an increase,
not a decrease, in crime thereby threatening, not enhancing, public
safety.
Bill C-17 is living proof the justice minister does not-I say this
with respect-seem to know what he is doing. On one hand he
states he will get tougher on crime, that he will make our streets
and homes safer when what he is actually doing is making it easier
on criminals by reducing penalties. I cannot do anything other than
oppose Bill C-17.
(1305)
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The vote stands deferred until tomorrow
at 5.30 p.m.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Justice) moved that
Bill C-27, an act to amend the Criminal Code (Child prostitution,
child sex tourism, criminal harassment and female genital
mutilation) be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak on Bill C-27.
In addition to the provisions of Bill C-119, which died on the
Order Paper when the last session was prorogued, this bill includes
provisions with respect to child sex tourism.
The government continues to have concerns regarding violence
against women and children. These concerns have led us to present
the amendments proposed in Bill C-27 addressing child
prostitution, criminal harassment and female genital mutilation.
At the ninth U.N. conference on the prevention of crime and the
treatment of offenders in Cairo in 1995, member states were urged
to adopt effective measures against practices harmful to women
and children.
In 1993 the United Nations declaration on the elimination of
violence against women and the 1995 platform for action for the
fourth world conference on women recognized that violence
against women violates their human rights and fundamental
freedoms.
Canada has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child. This bill will help to fulfil our commitment as set out
in the convention to protect children from all forms of sexual
exploitation and unlawful sexual practices. These concerns extend
to the prostitution of children, whether in or outside Canada.
The improvements proposed in Bill C-27 are a first step in the
federal response to the joint federal-provincial-territorial
consultation on prostitution. While this consultation is still
ongoing, the need to deal with the prostitution of children, that is
persons under 18 years of age, has become increasingly apparent.
Our communities are alarmed at the growing number of young
people involved in prostitution. Most adult prostitutes state they
entered prostitution as youths. Both sex trade workers and
professionals suggest the average age of entry is 14. There have
been cases of children as young as 8 or 9 being sexually procured.
There have been extensive consultations on the subject of
prostitution. There is a general feeling that the involvement of
young persons in prostitution is the issue which most urgently
needs to be dealt with.
(1310)
The preamble of Bill C-27 stresses the particular vulnerability of
young people and their need for protection. It also stresses how
reprehensible it is to involve youth in prostitution related activities
and that the sexual exploitation of children is to be treated
extremely seriously, including in the sentencing of such crimes.
3546
The changes proposed in the bill are aimed at protecting
children from adult predators who seek children for sexual
services or to exploit young prostitutes for economic gain. They
would make it easier to apprehend customers of young prostitutes
by modifying a Criminal Code provision to make it illegal to
attempt to procure the sexual services of a person the offender
believes is under the age of 18. The evidentiary presumption has
specifically been proposed to facilitate the proof of this belief.
One of the main points of discussion during consultations was
that traditional policing methods are not appropriate for the
enforcement of current Criminal Code provisions and that these
provisions have not been very successful in allowing police to
bring customers and procurers to justice in many jurisdictions.
These provisions work only when a prostitute gives evidence
against a procurer, but in most cases child prostitutes do not wish to
appear as witnesses against their pimps.
For the most part, the Criminal Code is enforceable only when
the customer is caught in the act of obtaining sexual services from a
young person for consideration. The proposed change in the
wording of the relevant sections and the addition of a presumption
would greatly assist the enforcement of these provisions. A new
offence of aggravated procuring would carry a five year minimum
sentence. It would also be created for those who for their own profit
and while living on the avails of child prostitution use violence or
intimidation in carrying out prostitution related activities.
It is our view society should denounce such a crime in strong
terms and send a signal of the community's abhorrence of this type
of crime by imposing a sentence commensurate with the gravity of
the offence. Both public protection and the expression of public
revulsion for such conduct would appear to require that a minimum
time served in the correctional system be subject to legislative
rather than judicial and administrative control.
Some persons believe prostitution is a victimless crime, that
youths involved in prostitution are all on the street by choice. This
perception might be exacerbated by the fact that only some
prostitution related activities, as opposed to prostitution as a whole,
constitute crime. This perception is wrong.
It is important to send a strong message of social disapproval
with respect to the prostitution of young people. The creation of a
mandatory minimum sentence will send the strong message that
while procuring youth is never acceptable, as evidenced by the high
sentences already included in the Criminal Code, procuring youth
with these added serious circumstances is even less tolerable and is
to be punished by severe sentences.
The creation of a separate aggravated offence assists in the
fulfilling of the spirit of the red book commitment to toughen laws
against pimps. Special protections to ease the burden for young
persons testifying in court will be made available to child
prostitutes testifying against their exploiters. These protections
involve testimony from behind a screen and other methods of
testifying that are less intimidating than a courtroom testimony
such as videotaped evidence or the use of a closed circuit television
system. Young prostitutes would have the same protection in this
respect as other victims of child sexual abuse.
The bill also proposes to extend the use of devices such as a
screen, closed circuit television or videotaped evidence to young
victims of child pornography or assault.
(1315 )
Bill C-27 also proposes to allow the courts to make an order
restricting the publication or broadcast of the identity of a
complainant or witness in a prostitution related case. This will
encourage prostitutes, particularly young prostitutes, to testify in
these cases.
In addition to the legislative amendments of Bill C-27, efforts
are being made to increase the awareness of justice system
personnel regarding the exploitation and victimization resulting
from prostitution. These include: developing models to provide
training for police, prosecutors, judges, social workers who are
involved with young prostitutes; encouraging provinces and
territories to create strong police, crown and child welfare
partnerships to deal with prostitution cases involving children; in
co-operation with the provinces, developing an enforcement guide
for the use of police and prosecutors in child prostitution cases; and
encouraging provincial authorities to dedicate resources to fight
child prostitution vigorously and to rigorously enforce the Criminal
Code provisions focusing on pimps and customers of child
prostitutes.
Bill C-27 also acts on the commitment made by this government
in the February throne speech, namely the protection of the rights
of children as a Canadian priority.
This bill proposes further amendments to the Criminal Code to
enable criminal prosecution in Canada of Canadian citizens and
permanent residents who travel abroad to engage in the sexual
exploitation of children for money and other considerations. This
practice, which is sometimes referred to as sex tourism, can only be
stopped by international commitments and collaboration. Bill C-27
recognizes this commitment and sends a very strong message
internationally about Canada's intolerance of such practices. With
this amendment Canada will join 11 other countries: Sweden,
Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Belgium, France, Germany,
Australia, New Zealand and the United States which have already
enacted similar legislative measures.
3547
The federal government has made a strong commitment to
address the serious problem of violence against women and
children. Bill C-27 proposes to strengthen the existing Criminal
Code prohibition of criminal harassment or stalking as it is
sometimes referred to. These amendments will serve to provide
increased protection to women and children who are the primary
victims of criminal harassment from such conduct.
These proposals also respond to an earlier commitment the
Minister of Justice made in response to recommendations made by
the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for
justice and by other partners in the criminal justice system.
Bill C-27 proposes that a person who commits murder while
stalking in circumstances where he or she intended to make the
victim fear for their safety or the safety of others, for example the
victim's children, can be found guilty of first degree murder
whether or not it can be proved that the murder itself was planned
and deliberate.
First degree murder carries a mandatory penalty of life
imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 25 years. This
amendment clearly indicates that murder committed in the course
of stalking a victim is an exceptionally serious crime and will be
treated as such.
Bill C-27 further proposes that a court imposing a sentence on a
person who is convicted of stalking while under a restraining order
or peace bond shall treat that as an aggravating factor for
sentencing purposes.
Another proposal in this bill concerns the practice of female
genital mutilation which involves excising or mutilating the
genitals of female infants or children. This practice can cause
severe and irreversible health problems. The Department of Justice
is currently collaborating with Health Canada, the Status of
Women, Canadian Heritage, and Citizenship and Immigration
Canada on the development of public legal, health and cultural
education and information materials on female genital mutilation.
It has been the government's position, and still is, that female
genital mutilation is already covered by the Criminal Code. We are
nevertheless proposing an amendment to clarify this prohibition so
that it will be very clear that no form of female genital mutilation is
permitted by Canadian law. I am confident this clarification
together with our collaborative efforts on public education and
information will play an important role in protecting Canadian
children from the practice of female genital mutilation.
(1320)
Finally, Bill C-27 contains minor amendments to some
prostitution offences with a view to removing archaic
terminologies such as references to ``house of assignation'' or a
``person of known immoral character''.
As I have said, our Canadian youth matter a great deal. We are
demonstrating our leadership by squarely addressing several issues
where young people in particular are vulnerable: juvenile
prostitution, child sex tourism, female genital mutilation. It is
important to send a strong message of social disapproval with
respect to the abuse, exploitation and prostitution of young people.
Young people deserve our respect. Young people need our
protection.
In Bill C-27 we are dealing with the important issue of criminal
harassment. Women and children are more frequent victims of
stalking. They should be protected. This bill is important for all
Canadians. It is in keeping with the ideals of Canadian society, a
society which does not tolerate violence against women and
children. Bill C-27 will help curb the problem of abuse and
violence against women and children.
I would particularly like to commend the efforts of the Minister
of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice. Both have worked
very hard in these regards and both very strongly, precisely and
ably have spoken out to protect those who are most vulnerable in
our society.
I seek the support of the House for swift passage of this bill.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-27 addresses a number of issues, including female genital
mutilation, criminal harassment, child sex tourism, testimony by
children and procuring.
I will deal first with child sex tourism, and then female genital
mutilation. Both are problems I feel a particular concern about,
having initiated the related bills. I will conclude by discussing the
three other aspects of the bill.
First of all, I will look at child sex tourism. I will begin by telling
you a story reported in the November 1993 Reader's Digest.
In 1992, near the border of Thailand, a young girl of 14 was
walking toward the rice fields where her parents were working.
Suddenly, a truck stopped in front of her and the driver forced her
to get in. She was illegally confined in a brothel in Bangkok and
raped ten times a day. When she cried out, she was beaten. She was
robbed of her youth.
In another country, Sri Lanka, men from London, Stuttgart, and
San Francisco tan on the beach. Not far away, young Ceylonese
boys lie on the sand. A middle-aged German accosts a ten-year old.
He asks his name and, without any further ado, orders him to
accompany him to his hotel. This is how they contribute to the
country's economy, it is said.
These are just two of hundreds of cases reported by journalists
and others who have looked into child sex tourism. These two
3548
examples are a good illustration of the terrible reality behind the
sexual exploitation of children.
As I have just said, this is a terrible reality, because we have here
one of mankind's most reprehensible behaviours, the exploitation
and victimization of children for sexual reward.
What makes child sex tourism particularly terrible is that the
children that are its victims are already disadvantaged. They are
poor and come from developing countries where people's basic
needs are not always met, far from it.
In the name of the almighty dollar, these children are kidnapped,
held in brothels, beaten, humiliated and continually exposed to the
worst diseases, from which they will eventually die in their early
twenties, just when our children are entering adulthood and setting
out on a life full of promise. That is the ``local'' aspect of the
operation.
(1325)
Then there is the customer, who comes from a rich country and is
personally well off. This person can afford trips to exotic countries
for the purpose, sometimes the sole purpose, of purchasing the
sexual services of children.
Let us not fool ourselves, this customer knows full well that he is
committing a criminal act. He knows full well that involvement in
the same activity in his own country would put him at risk of
landing in jail for several years. This very morning, our newspapers
were reporting that an Ontario man had been sentenced to three
years in prison for having been found guilty of sexual relations
with children between the ages of 9 and 14.
Just because this is taking place elsewhere is not a reason not be
concerned by it. As I was saying, the customer knows full well that
this is one of the behaviours his society tolerates least. Why then
should he feel so free to go abroad to take advantage of children in
other countries?
Some of these homosexual pedophiles claim to feel great love
for their victims, and claim that the children feel the same way
about them. They also claim that our laws are prohibitive and ought
to acknowledge the possibility of supposedly affectionate relations
between adults and children.
I would remind you that these children are often no more than 10
years old, sometimes even younger. This is an absolutely fallacious
argument. How can anyone believe that a child forced to prostitute
himself with strangers, sometimes horrifying numbers of them in
one day, can feel any sort of affection whatsoever for his
aggressors? The answer to this question is so obvious as to not even
merit a reply.
Another argument these tourists raise is the matter of cultural
differences. They claim that in the countries where they go to
purchase the services of children there is a different mentality, that
these youngsters are love children, that sexual morality is different
there, that sexual relations between children and adults are
perceived differently, are part of the mores of the country. What
nonsense.
We need only listen to the testimony of these poor children to
know that this argument is, at the very least, misleading
propaganda and, at most, a totally abusive justification of attacks
on defenceless victims who are totally at the mercy of their
tormenters.
What is more, how could these same people explain that these
same foreign countries themselves have legislation against juvenile
prostitution? Are not the laws of a country supposed to reflect the
morality of its people?
While it appears true that, in certain countries, the laws on child
prostitution are not being applied as fully as they ought, we must
not rule out poverty based corruption as an explanation. It is in no
way a matter of different sexual morals.
Our society does not tolerate the purchase of sexual services
from children, whether at home or abroad. Our society does not
tolerate the kidnapping of children, who are mistreated in order to
provide thrills for certain adults. This practice flies in the face of all
the rights accorded children globally, nationally or internationally.
A child's right to safety, health and life is sacred. All our laws are
aimed at protecting them. Our criminal code, our charters, our laws
on child protection all have only one aim, which is to ensure that all
children live in safety, free from exploitation and mistreatment.
Regardless of sexual tourists' fine words, their degrading
behaviour violates the fundamental rights of their victims. These
tourists are intolerable; they are criminals.
This brings us to Bill C-27, which contains a provision making it
easier to arrest and prosecute the clientele of children involved in
prostitution in Canada and abroad.
(1330)
This breaks new legal ground, because of the extraterritorial
scope accorded the Criminal Code. With this new legislation, the
authorities will now be able to prosecute Canadian nationals
buying the sexual services of children abroad.
I am delighted by this government initiative. I am particularly
happy because this is an area that concerns me a lot and that was
the focus of a private member's bill I introduced in this House over
a year ago. I was contacted after introducing it by organizations and
people thanking me and encouraging me to continue to help protect
defenceless children.
As a member of Parliament, I can only be happy to make a
contribution, however modest it may be, to this cause untiringly
fought for out there by many people who care about defending
children and who, in some cases, put their own lives at risk. I thank
3549
the Hon. Minister of Justice for recognizing the importance of
legislating in this area.
I, however, have a few comments to make regarding the kind of
action taken by the minister in this matter. I think that two
important elements are missing from this bill. I am speaking of the
impact of this bill in terms of quality and of the role it is playing in
the commission of a crime. Let me explain.
First of all, Bill C-27 provides only for the prosecution of
Canadian citizens and landed immigrants. I think this category is
too narrow and I intend to propose, during committee
consideration, that the minister expand the classes of people who
can be prosecuted. I think it is important that any individual,
regardless of his or her legal status in Canada, be subject to
prosecution if he or she commits this crime. I think the bill is too
restrictive in this regard.
Second, I think this bill must specifically target not only the
customers but also all the people and companies directly or
indirectly involved in this kind of sex tourism. The law should
explicitly prohibit travel agencies and carriers from participating in
or promoting this trade.
I think the culpability of promoters and carriers must be
recognized since these people benefit from and promote sex
tourism just to make money. This is another amendment we should
consider.
I would now like to move on to the second part of Bill C-27,
which deals with female genital mutilation. As in the case of sex
tourism, I am pleased to note that the Minister of Justice has seen
fit to take action to amend the Criminal Code for the purpose of
naming and prohibiting the practice of female genital mutilation.
Both these practices deny children's right to personal security
and, in some cases, their right to life. They are therefore very
important. In September 1994, I introduced at first reading a bill
that would prohibit the practice of female genital mutilation and
provide for the prosecution of those involved. That bill is now at
the committee stage.
My bill attracted the attention of many people and organizations
in both Quebec and Canada. I noticed how seriously groups dealing
with health and social issues, groups involved in putting an end to
violence against women got together to examine the situation and
try to remedy it.
As in the case of child sex tourism, there is a consensus not only
internationally, but also nationally and locally, around the fact that
genital mutilation should be eradicated. Mutilation violates
women's right to life and security of the person and, as such,
cannot be tolerated.
I spoke at length about this subject in the House. Now the time
has come to stop talking and start acting. Once a consensus has
been achieved, we must look at what can be done.
(1335)
I also noted, much to my relief, the climate of respect and
sensitivity in which the debates on this subject take place. Every
conversation I have had, every discussion meeting I have attended
and every study I have read have all been stamped with profound
respect for the person, whether the victim or those close to them.
The consensus is that this practice must end, but the means
developed to achieve this goal show great respect for those
concerned.
For instance, there is much talk about educating affected
communities and about the difference between respecting a cultural
practice and respecting basic human rights. I think we are on the
right track and I am convinced that it is not by denigrating
individuals that we will succeed in getting them to give up certain
practices.
Having said that, even if education and information are the basic
tools of the fight against genital mutilation, the fact remains that
penalties must be provided for in the legislation for those who
knowingly carry on a practice violating human rights. In that sense,
the minister's initiative addresses my concerns and those of every
person concerned about mutilation.
I commend this initiative, even though, as I said, it has its flaws.
Before looking at these flaws, I must insist on the importance of
having a common goal. I know that we all have the same goal,
which will ensure that the best possible legislation will be passed.
As for the flaws of this legislation, I want to say a word on the
approach used by the minister to prohibit female genital mutilation.
Contrary to my bill, which established a new offence, Bill C-27
merely points out that female genital mutilation is a form of
aggravated assault.
In other words, the bill only makes the definition more clear.
This way of doing things will not enable us to reach our objective.
Through readings and conversations, I have learned that members
of the communities still practising genital mutilation are not at all
aware of the fact that they are actually taking part in a form of
aggravated assault. In fact, most of these people would take
exception to such a view.
Therefore, since these people feel the operation is merely a
cultural practice, in fact a necessary one, it should be dissociated
from the usual notion of aggravated assault. The Criminal Code
must include a provision dealing exclusively with female genital
mutilation, to make people aware of the fact that this specific
practice is illegal.
There is another flaw in Bill C-27 regarding the persons
associated with this practice. Indeed, the prohibition only applies
3550
to those actually performing the surgical procedure. This is an
essential first step. However, as I said on numerous occasions, it is
also important, if we are to reach our goal of eradicating this
practice, that all those involved be sued, whether it is a family
member giving the authorization, a person looking after the travel
arrangements of the victim to the country of origin, or of the
midwife to Canada, or a person who, for example, puts parents in
contact with someone prepared to perform the operation.
Why charge everyone involved? Because this is a cultural
practice, it is of primary importance for concerned members of the
community to feel answerable to the law. In order to eradicate a
practice, all those involved must be made to feel responsible. They
must be made to know that, like any other act that is deemed to be
criminal, any form of participation in the commission of that act is
punishable. Thus, if each individual involved is aware that his role
contributes to the commission of a criminal act, the chance of the
operation being done successfully are reduced accordingly.
If one link in the chain is missing, the chain is likely to be
broken, and that is what we want. We want to see the chain broken
so that the physical integrity of women and young girls is
respected.
(1340)
Since, by definition, genital mutilation require a very young
victim, obviously a person in authority must give authorization. It
is said that some six million women yearly undergo excision.
Obviously, the person who does this must be recruited by someone.
It also seems that, in many cases, the child is taken out of the
country to undergo the operation.
She does not get there alone. If one of the people involved did
not fulfil his or her role, the operation would not take place. It is
important, therefore, to include in a legal text that these persons are
committing a criminal act by playing their role in it. It is important
that they know that they will be punished. The practice will be
ended if all of the bases are covered.
As well, since we know that the operation on Canadian nationals
is often carried out outside the country, I am suggesting that the
minister do as he has done in the case of child sex tourism and
include extraterritoriality in the section pertaining to female genital
mutilation. This would allow Canadian prosecution of persons
taking a child abroad or organizing such a trip for the purpose of
this operation. This extraterritoriality would make it possible to
stop people from continuing to work around the law and would
protect the children more effectively, which is, I say again, the
purpose of the bill.
Third, I would like to again question the exception for
supposedly ``necessary'' surgical procedures. Discussions I have
had with a representative of Canada's obstetricians and
gynaecologists and the positions taken by physicians' associations
have convinced me that there is absolutely no need for such an
exception and that, in fact, its effect might be the opposite of that
intended by the law.
In fact, I wonder whether such an exception might not lead to
operations on the grounds they are necessary for a woman's health.
From the information I received, physicians do not need legislation
to know when a medical intervention is necessary. As they do not
consider female genital mutilation a medical intervention, there is
no need for its mention in the text of a law. I consider therefore that
this exception should be eliminated.
Finally, I would like to debate the possibility provided in Bill
C-27 of an adult's consenting to a form of genital mutilation. I
reject this possibility as strongly as I possibly can, because it runs
completely counter to the intended objective, which is eradicating
female genital mutilation.
In the name of what principle exactly can the text of a law
provide that an individual may consent to being mutilated? How do
we expect to put an end to a centuries old cultural practice widely
followed in certain cultures by permitting its being done to adults?
How can we lose sight of the fact that family and social pressure
may force women to agree to the operation when they reach age 18,
the age of majority?
I cannot accept our protecting women before they reach the age
of majority and subsequently leaving them unprotected. Female
genital mutilation, like the sexual exploitation of children, must be
stopped. I will be happy to co-operate with the Minister of Justice
to come up with the best possible legislation on these two aspects
of the government bill.
As the House knows, Bill C-27 addresses other key issues in
protecting women and children. I would like to take a quick look at
them, although I expect some of my colleagues to do a more
in-depth analysis. Criminal harassment is a relatively recent
offence in the history of our criminal law. In fact, it was only in
1991 that the government finally bowed to the arguments made by
women, who had for a long time demanded protection against
criminal harassment.
(1345)
Criminal harassment is an insidious form of violence against
women. It shows the possessive jealously some men feel toward
their wives. This feeling causes them to take some very specific
actions against their victims such as spying on everything they do,
making threats and trying to intimidate them.
A criminal harassment victim is not free and never feels safe.
Her whole life and that of other people around her is affected to a
significant degree by the harasser's behaviour and the fears it
arouses.
3551
Apparently, women have not won this battle yet, given the
judicial system's anemic response to the 1991 legislative
initiative. That is why we now find in Bill C-27 a new provision
that would give some teeth to those already in place. We agree.
The effort to eliminate violence against women must be taken
seriously by all stakeholders, be they police officers, Crown
prosecutors or judges. How many women killed by their former
husbands were harassed by them long before and right until they
died? How many women fruitlessly appealed for help until it was
too late?
The Bloc Quebecois strongly supports any measure to protect the
lives of women and save them from the most pernicious kind of
violence, the kind perpetrated by a spouse or former spouse.
Bill C-27 also addresses another crime: child prostitution. More
adults exploiting children for sexual purposes or for the purpose of
gain. In fact, what pimps are doing with their victims is a form of
modern-day slavery which is, still today, condemned by the
International Labour Office. Data issued by the office show that
tens of millions of children have been enslaved, and a great many
of them in the sex industry. That is what the papers were reporting
this morning.
As we know, often pimps do not only exploit their victims, they
also abuse them. It is a hellish situation young prostitutes. both
boys and girls, have the greatest difficulty getting out of. Those
who succeed need years to piece their lives back together.
Léon Bernier and Jean Trépanier, two Quebec researchers who
looked into the issue of juvenile prostitution, have compiled a list
of problems related to prostitution. This list includes sexually
transmitted diseases, emotional disturbances and socio-affective
disorders, violence, delinquency and drug use.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with imposing stiffer sentences on
pimps who use violence and live off the proceeds of the
exploitation of youngsters.
As far as the provision on agents provocateurs is concerned,
however, we think perhaps further consideration is required, in the
context where it may not necessarily be the role of the state to trip
up individual citizens. We therefore urge the minister to think this
over.
Finally, I would like to assure the justice minister of the Bloc
Quebecois' support for those provisions that will help young
prostitutes come out and testify against their pimps. By allowing
special measures to extend to the testimony of young victims of
violence or procuring as well as of witnesses under the age of 18 in
such matters, the government is seeking to reduce procuring
through the conviction of those who commit a crime which, in my
sense, is the most blameworthy of all crimes: child abuse.
Any society that respects itself and wishes to survive protects its
children. We will support any measure geared to achieving this
objective while not violating basic human rights.
(1350)
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-27. This is one of the few
times the Minister of Justice has put together legislation that goes
somewhat in the right direction.
Looking back over the last few years, much from the Department
of Justice was based on the bleeding heart mentality of the
Liberals. One might say they had no sense of direction and no sense
of putting public safety as the number one priority, certainly not a
reflection of mainstream Canadian values.
With Bill C-37, which amends the Young Offenders Act, the
minister was too lenient, providing more rights it seems to the
offender than to victim. The minister had an opportunity to lower
the age limit in the Young Offenders Act, something the majority of
Canadians were pressing for, but he left the age alone simply to
perhaps please the bleeding hearts. Now we have more committee
study.
With Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons,
the minister could not demonstrate that a ban on guns would put a
stop to crime. Time will tell how this bill did nothing to curb
violent crime involving weapons. Certainly this will be the
minister's legacy, much about disruptive cost, very little to do with
public safety.
Bills C-41 and C-33, the two bills which included the term
sexual orientation into both the Criminal Code and the Canadian
Human Rights Act, prove the minister is all for giving special
status to certain groups instead of providing equal protection for
all.
I am talking about the track record in the context of this bill. The
track record of this minister is enough to single handedly perhaps
undermine Canada's justice system. Where are we going? When I
am back in my riding one of the comments I often hear is ``do not
let the justice minister get away with the softening of crime''.
People are generally afraid in their communities. They are afraid
that criminals seem to have more rights than the average Canadian
citizen. They are afraid knowing that sections of the Criminal Code
like 745 are giving mass murderers like Clifford Olson at least a
glimmer of hope of being released before their sentence is up.
Specifically on this bill today, the government could have
repealed section 745 but it did not. One of the markers of this minor
criminal justice bill is significantly what is not in it and what could
have been in it rather than what is.
3552
Many Canadians have written to the minister and have
submitted countless petitions asking for the repeal of section 745,
yet nothing has been done because the minority of bleeding hearts
in this country are maybe supporting the Liberals. They know they
are tied to special interest. Therefore because of political
manoeuvring and expediency, the safety of Canadians is
continuing to be put in jeopardy.
I think we should expect more from our justice minister, after all
he is the justice minister for our whole country. We look to him for
guidance in being able to put a climate of laws in place to protect
the community. We should expect him to represent the grassroots
of ordinary communities and not special interests.
The minister says he does respect the grassroots, except his
legislation he almost always proves the opposite to be true. In view
of what is not in this bill, who then does have the ear of the justice
minister? It certainly does not appear to be the ordinary Canadian.
Yes, I did say almost always. In my riding of New
Westminster-Burnaby, for example, prostitution is a serious
problem, as is the case in most of the larger Canadian cities.
Prostitutes gather for a time in one given area until a group of
concerned citizens pushes them away. Except they do not really go
away, they simply move to the other side of the tracks or another
part of town.
While Bill C-27 goes in the right direction in this matter and
respects some of the wishes of the grassroots, it again, in the
typical pattern I have pointed out, does not go far enough. Like
most Liberal bills, stricter penalties are frowned on. Sadly this is
what communities really want.
In concert with helping programs, we need a climate of legal
control so they can operate successfully. It is all a matter of balance
and the courage to act. This bill deals with prostitution as a
problem but it does not go far enough.
In September 1994, I recall when New Westminster activist Neil
Douglas put together a group of neighbours who were frustrated
with finding used condoms and needles lying around in his
community, not to mention the indecent acts that were happening
right in the middle of the street. This group set up a campaign to
stop the Johns from picking up prostitutes in their local area. They
would set up all night vigilance in areas frequented by prostitutes in
an effort to shame the Johns, and the campaign did work. It was
citizen action, not certainly will the help of our legal climate,
except for one problem. When the New Westminster group drive
the prostitutes out of their area, the prostitutes migrate over to my
neighbouring city Burnaby. Then a Burnaby watch group does a
similar action, takes over and drives the prostitutes back to New
Westminster. This is going on back and forth.
(1355)
Citizens are understandably frustrated. Unfortunately the lack of
resources from local police and the lack of the appropriate legal
climate makes residents take matters into their own hands. This is
when the whole issue becomes much more serious. This is why the
Criminal Code needs to be changed to reflect the needs of society.
In March of this year I introduced a private member's bill, Bill
C-248, which would make changes to section 213 of the Criminal
Code. The way it currently stands every person who in a public
place or any place open to public view stops or attempts to stop a
motor vehicle, impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular
traffic or stops any person for the purposes to communicate to
engage in prostitution is guilty of an offence punishable on
summary conviction.
Since my community is plagued with this problem, I went to it to
ask for possible solutions. One that came up time after time was to
stiffen the penalty. I proposed that in my private member's bill. It
would make the penalty for communicating an indictable offence
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or guilty
of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
This would allow the judge greater freedom from the current
penalty of simply applying a summary conviction offence. It makes
the offences electable and permits greater latitude for police
discretion to arrest and to identify.
In March 1995 a consultation paper was prepared by the working
group on prostitution, a group established in 1992 by the federal,
provincial and territorial deputy ministers responsible for justice.
The report suggested exactly what I proposed in Bill C-248 and
suggested making section 213 of the Criminal Code a dual
procedure or hybrid offence.
I want to read what the committee said for the reasons for such a
suggestion:
This option would give the crown the choice of proceeding by way of
summary conviction or on indictment if prostitutes or their customers were
arrested under section 213. It would provide a higher maximum penalty if the
crown chose to proceed by indictment and would also allow fingerprints and
photographs to be taken upon arrest. Being able to take fingerprints upon arrest
would help the police and the courts enforce the legislation by minimizing the
use of false identity especially by repeat offenders.
Prostitutes, particularly youths and runaways who could be identified, could
be assisted in leaving the sex trade. This option might help programs for
deterring street prostitution when those programs depend on knowing the
identities of people in the sex trade.
On November 27, 1989 Superintendent Jim Clark of the morality
bureau of Metropolitan Toronto Police testified at a House of
Commons justice standing committee: ``Being able to fingerprint
and photograph suspects would help police locate out of town
runaways age 13 to 15 who are engaged in prostitution and to clear
the large backlog of outstanding arrest warrants against prostitutes
who have been able to use false identities with impunity''.
3553
There are only two ways police would be able to fingerprint a
prostitute charged with solicitation.
The Speaker: You will have the floor when we return to debate
after question period. It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
3553
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week across the country Canadians of Portuguese origin have
hosted Portugal Week, a festival of celebration and cheer.
The highlight of this week is today, June 10, the Portuguese
National Day, a celebration of many accomplishments of the
Portuguese-Canadian community. This day has historic
significance as well, for it is the anniversary of the death of the
great Portuguese poet Luis Vaz de Camoes.
In my riding of Trinity-Spadina this week's festivities are
organized by the Alliance of Portuguese Clubs and Associations of
Ontario. Among the events scheduled are a soccer tournament, an
art exhibit, a parade, as well as numerous concerts featuring
internationally recognized Portuguese entertainers.
I salute Canadians of Portuguese origin in my riding for their
contribution to the cultural life of Toronto and Canada during this
day of celebration.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières recently inaugurated a new
building for the Institut de recherche sur l'hydrogène.
This $6 million investment seeks to promote research in the
areas of safety, storage and transportation of hydrogen, a fuel
which, along with electricity, is the energy of the future. The
institute greatly helps to make Quebec a world leader in
pollution-free energy.
I also want to stress the incredible work done by the initiator of
the project, who is also the director of the institute, Tapan K. Bose.
Mr. Bose, an emeritus professor and researcher, was president of
the Canadian hydrogen association in 1994 and president of the
International Organization for Standardization in the same sector,
in 1995.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, more
than a month has passed since members of this House sent a
message to the Senate requesting that the chair of the Senate board
of internal economy appear before the Standing Committee on
Government Operations to account for Senate expenses. We have
heard nothing from the Senate.
How can an unelected, unaccountable public institution not
justify its expenses to the public? It is simply unacceptable. If $40
million cannot be justified, members should reduce spending to
more reasonable levels. A $10 million reduction to bring spending
down to $30 million may be more appropriate.
Canadians simply cannot continue to write a blank cheque for
the Senate. It is time for the Senate to respect modern democratic
principles of accountability and justify its spending to taxpayers.
Senator Kenny told reporters he is willing to come before
committee. Well Mr. Kenny, your time has come. Come on down.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great sadness that I rise today to recognize the passing of
Harry Allen, Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations.
Mr. Allen made a tremendous contribution to his community and
to aboriginal people throughout Canada. He served as chair of the
Council for Yukon Indians from 1975 to 1985. He was also the
former northern regional vice-chief of the Assembly of First
Nations where with great integrity he served aboriginal peoples
across this country. In August 1995 he was elected Grand Chief of
the Council of Yukon First Nations.
He was a member of the Champagne Aishiak Band. His
traditional home was Klukshu. He was a great leader to all of us in
the Yukon and across this country.
I am sure all Yukoners and members of this House will join me
in paying tribute to a true leader and a great spirit, the late Grand
Chief Harry Allen.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, recently I held a national unity essay writing contest
among the students in my riding. The response to the contest was
overwhelming in the number of entrants, the quality of the writing
and the passion which characterized the essays.
3554
After a review by a panel of three volunteer judges, grade 13
student Angela Hood from Listowel District Secondary School
was chosen as the winner. She is in our gallery today. Through
her essay she clearly demonstrated an appreciation and
understanding of the spirit of solidarity which is necessary to
ensure our country remains strong and united.
We have many reasons to be proud Canadians. Canada is a
universal model of openness, tolerance and generosity. We are a
success story, a story to be told to the world. As students in my
riding outlined in their essays, they look forward to the future in a
country that is strong, prosperous, and most important, united.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to announce the beginning of
National Public Service Week. Every year at this time we
acknowledge the work of dedicated women and men in the federal
public service and make Canadians aware of the wide variety of
high quality services they receive from the federal government.
Canada is reputed to have one of the finest public service
organizations in the world. Our country can count on the
non-partisan professional public service to help the government
run efficiently and to support Canada's growing economy.
I believe National Public Service Week is an excellent time for
members of Parliament to visit government offices here in the
national capital region and at home to personally thank the men and
women of the federal public service for a job well done.
* * *
(1405 )
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my constituents of Scarborough Centre, I wish to extend
congratulations to the city of Scarborough on the occasion of its
200th birthday.
As residents of Scarborough, we are very proud of our heritage
and our city. Scarborough's roots date back to the late 1700s. In
1793 Elizabeth Simcoe, wife of the first Lieutenant Governor of
Upper Canada, named Scarborough after the town of the same
name in England. Six years later in 1799, David and Mary
Thomson became the first European settlers in Scarborough. Today
in 1996, we are a diverse and dynamic community of more than
half a million people.
Bicentennial celebrations have been under way in Scarborough
since January and will continue through to December. In fact, June
10 to June 16 has officially been declared Scarborough Week.
The city of Scarborough has made an invaluable contribution to
the social, economic, political and cultural development of our
country. Today Scarborough is the sum of its citizens and the fruits
of a rich history spanning 200 years.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in an article
published in the May 28 issue of the newspaper
La Voix de l'est, the
member for Brome-Missisquoi said, in reference to the
unemployment insurance reform, that the number of employees
who will remain at the Cowansville employment centre was
determined by taking into account the size of the area served, as
opposed to the size of the population, which is the usual criterion.
Why is it that, with a population twice that of the Cowansville
region, the employment centre in Granby will have proportionally
only half the number of employees to serve its taxpayers?
I would like the Minister of Human Resources Development to
explain to the people in the riding of Shefford how he determined
the number of employees remaining at the Cowansville
employment centre, compared to that of Granby.
I would like the minister to explain to the people in the riding of
Shefford why he violated the principles of fairness toward
taxpayers by sacrificing the Granby employment centre for the one
in Cowansville. Is it because the member for Brome-Missisquoi
happens to be a Liberal like him?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over the
course of the past few days the Reform Party has examined its
policies, developed new policies and come out strong and united.
No other party has tackled the questions faced by this nation in
such an open and honest forum. No other party has the courage to
challenge antiquated notions, has the vision to develop clear goals
and the innovation to present bold initiatives and leadership for the
future.
Now, bolstered by the confidence of our members and confident
that our vision will lead us to success in the next election, the
3555
Reform Party is revitalized and ready to pursue its goals for the
good of Canada and all Canadians.
I would like to thank the organizers, the volunteers and the
delegates who gave of their time and effort for the assembly in
Vancouver. The Reform Party is proud of its grassroots and
recognizes its responsibility to be a voice for our membership and
like-minded Canadians. Without them, the resounding success of
the assembly and the Reform Party would not be possible.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two issues of paramount concern among
Canadians are the ever increasing cost of gasoline and the high
interest rates on credit cards. On numerous occasions I have stood
in this House urging the government to intervene on behalf of the
millions of Canadians who are being ripped off by the banking
institutions and oil companies.
While I reject the explanation given by oil companies to justify
their blatant price gouging of Canadians, I cannot understand why
this government will not put its foot down. While Ontarians are
angry for having to pay 60 cents a litre, Quebecers should be livid
for having to pay 67 cents a litre.
What Canadians want is not another inquiry but a permanent
commission established with the mandate to investigate price
gouging and the power to roll back prices. If this government is
really interested in giving Canadians a break at the gas pumps, then
I suggest a business partnership with the government of Iraq. Its oil
could be exchanged for our food for the thousands of innocent
children-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nepean.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week we
honour Canada's federal public servants during National Public
Service Week. It is important that Canadians know of their valuable
service to the public and the annual recognition that is given to
those employees for exemplary performance or for meritorious
suggestions. This award is the highest expression of official tribute.
I am particularly proud to mention two Nepean public servants
who have made an outstanding contribution: Christopher J. Cuddy
from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs; and
Carri-Ann Candusso from the Department of Transport. Both are
part of a team which has been selected for an award of excellence
to be presented by the President of the Treasury Board this
afternoon. My congratulations to them and to all winners.
(1410)
May we continue to acknowledge and be proud of the men and
women who make up Canada's public service as it continues to
develop and build on its tradition of excellence.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was pleased to learn over the weekend about the third
party's new-found belief in equality for Canadians. For Reformers,
these are fine words but they require action. So let us look at some
of the actions of Reformers.
Within minutes of approving a resolution in favour of equality,
Reformers applauded a member of Parliament who said his views
about sending minority workers to the back of the shop were
consistent with the resolution. What kind of equality is that?
At the same assembly, members spoke in favour of abolishing
the charter of rights or amending it. Now, that is equality. The only
reason the third party chose amending rather than abolishing it is of
course political expediency. Most voters in Canada support the
charter of rights and freedoms as a way of protecting rights for all
Canadians.
Reformers speak of national unity and are critical of separatists,
but they in turn want to emasculate the federal government.
I think it is time for the Reform Party to go back to school.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Reform tried to put on a new face this weekend but it is
more like new make-up over an old face. Canadians will not be
fooled. Reformers' vision of a new Canada for the 21st century in
reality is a return to a Canada of the 19th century. It is an old vision
dressed up in code language.
Reformers talk about maintaining our health care system, but
they plan a two tier system. They focus on personalizing social
programs, but that is just code language for dismantling them and
returning to a survival of the fittest society. For them equality is a
question of using the right language and avoiding attack by the
media. Reform equality is equality of the jungle.
Eliminating the GST means incorporating it into a new FST.
Reformers are proposing tax cuts. It sounds attractive and that is
why they are doing it. They have not told Canadians how they plan
to eliminate the deficit, cut taxes, create jobs and install a flat tax
3556
system all in three years. And all the while they claim the high
road of honesty and integrity.
Reform has indicated its plan to woo voters with new make-up.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Québec-Est.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
CJMF-Quebec's listening audience awarded the Bolo prize to the
heritage minister for her generous distribution of Canadian flags to
the people of Quebec.
In fact, last week, the minister, who was having trouble
unloading the Maple Leaf in Quebec, agreed to send 20,000 flags to
a single individual for distribution in day care centres, and 6,000 to
decorate the shores of the St. Lawrence, from Trois-Rivières to
Gaspé.
With Canada in the midst of a major crisis, the federal
government prefers to bury its problems under tons of Maple
Leaves, thus squandering over $7 billion of taxpayers' money on
propaganda.
And at the same time, the federal government is cutting $7
million in funding to the tokamak project in Varennes, thus
jeopardizing hundreds of jobs and important economic spinoffs for
Quebec.
What Quebec wants, and what Quebecers need, are not flags and
kites, but jobs and development.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when Reformers from all across Canada gathered in
Vancouver this past week, we reaffirmed our commitment to the
issues that are truly important to the Canadian people.
We addressed the need for personal security, a revitalized
economy and the importance of national unity. We reiterated the
importance of the family, of increased employment and job
opportunities, of reasonable access to core health and social issues
and the ability to plan for retirement.
We addressed the need for Canadians that we have a justice
system that makes them feel safe. We reached out to our
neighbours in Quebec and reaffirmed the need for a strong and
united country.
We did more than just talk the talk. We reinforced this thinking
by adopting policies that reflect what Canadians are really
believing. These resolutions will be enacted by a Reform
government, the next Government of Canada.
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday
the premiers of Quebec and of Canada met in Quebec City for a
working session.
This meeting, which had unfortunately been cancelled a few
weeks earlier by the premier of Quebec, resulted in progress on a
number of issues of importance to both governments.
Originally intended to be brief, the meeting, which lasted two
hours, showed once again that it is possible to establish a climate of
healthy co-operation between the Government of Quebec and the
Government of Canada.
When the meeting ended, there were only winners, and these
winners were the people of Quebec and of Canada, who will finally
be able to enjoy the positive benefits resulting from the joint
projects discussed at the meeting.
* * *
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
several thousands of people gathered on Parliament Hill in order to
demonstrate their attachment to Canada.
Our government was not involved in the organization of this
demonstration. We recognize and pay tribute to any demonstration
giving Canadians from throughout the country an opportunity to
express their love for their country.
This morning, certain newspapers carried a photo showing a
disgraceful scene from yesterday's rally. We wish to make known
our disapproval.
The issue of national unity will not be solved by insults and
mockery, as was fortunately understood by the very great majority
of participants at yesterday's rally.
_____________________________________________
3556
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice said that, as in the Bertrand case,
he planned to intervene in the Libman case, which will be heard by
the Supreme Court and which aims to invalidate the sections of the
Quebec Referendum Act limiting the expenditures of each camp
and creating referendum committees.
3557
Could the Minister of Justice confirm the government's
intention of intervening in support of Mr. Libman and indicate the
reason for its intervention?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is premature for us to take a
position on that question. Naturally, any time the constitutionality
of legislation is an issue, it is a matter of interest.
At this point, although leave has been granted to the appellant,
the court has yet to formulate the constitutional questions it will be
considering. When those questions have been formulated by the
court, we will examine them and determine whether there is any
way the Attorney General of Canada can assist the court in dealing
with the constitutional issues that arise.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, will the Minister of Justice confirm that his real intention,
in intervening in the Libman case, because we know he would like
to, is to come to the defence of those Liberal members and
members of his organization who are accused by the Directeur
général des élections du Québec of spending illegally in support of
the great rally in Montreal for the no side during the Quebec
referendum campaign?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no, that is not the point. We have
been monitoring this case and its progress in the courts since long
before that issue arose. Our interest is in the attention the Supreme
Court of Canada, the highest court in the country, will pay to
questions of constitutionality.
I stress for the hon. member and for the House that we have
made no decision on the question of whether to intervene. Our
decision will only be made after the court has formulated the
relevant questions and after we have had an opportunity to examine
them in relation to the issues that the court will consider.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how does the Minister of Justice explain the fact that,
after the government's attempt to change the rules of democracy in
Quebec, after its alliance with Guy Bertrand to prevent Quebecers
from voting again on their future, after expressing its intention to
decide the referendum question, the government now wants to join
with Robert Libman in attacking the Quebec Referendum Act, a
tool Quebec of democracy has given itself, which it does not want
affected by the federal government's intervention?
(1420)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first point out that no
decision has been made regarding Mr. Libman's case. As I said, we
are currently waiting to hear how the questions will be put by the
Supreme Court of Canada.
As regards Mr. Bertrand's case, I would also like to say that we
are not involved in this case because we want to support Mr.
Bertrand. We intervened because of the position taken by the
attorney general of Quebec. When he said clearly that the process
of Quebec's move to sovereignty was beyond the sway of both the
Constitution and the courts of Canada, the Attorney General of
Canada had to get involved to counter this statement. It is not true.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the Libman case, it is not even the Constitution that is
involved, it is the Quebec referendum legislation. What the
Minister of Justice is telling us is pretty unbelievable.
I am asking the Prime Minister whether he is aware that for
months his government, he and his Minister of Justice, have been
killing themselves to bring up the constitutional question at every
possible occasion, so as to go at Quebec democracy hammer and
tongs at every opportunity, and to constantly assail Quebecers'
democratic progress toward sovereignty.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the only thing we want is to see democracy respected in
Canada. There have been two referenda, and Canada won both
times. We are not interested in seeing this continued. It is the Bloc
Quebecois and the Quebec separatists who want to see it continued,
while most of the people of Quebec and of Canada have had
enough.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the Prime Minister does not wish to continue, I must say
he is experiencing difficulty in restraining himself, since in the
Bertrand case and in the Libman case, finding allies in Quebec
takes some doing.
Could the Prime Minister admit that, when it comes down to it,
the reason for his wishing to intervene in the Libman case is that he
wants to see more than one pro-federalist referendum committee
created, maybe because he no longer trusts his Quebec federalist
allies such as Daniel Johnson, and because he wants to see no more
barriers restricting the number of millions his financial allies, some
of them with family trusts behind them, are prepared to pour into
Quebec, as they did in the last referendum with the Montreal rally?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are all kinds of accusations within this question
which are not factual. We have respected all of the laws involved. I
believe that the fact that some Canadians decided to travel to
Montreal in this the freest country in the world, a country which
allows separatist MPs within the Parliament of Canada, that MPs
and other citizens of Canada wanted to go to tell Quebecers that
they must remain in Canada, shows a respect for freedom of
speech, which is entrenched in Canada's Charter of rights.
3558
The first charter respecting the right of all citizens to freedom of
speech was created in France. I hope that the people of the Bloc and
the Parti Quebecois will respect the freedom of speech of all
Canadians concerning the future of their country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
weekend thousands of passionate grassroots Canadians rallied to
demand some action on Canadian unity. They want the federal
government to drive the unity issue to resolution now before there
is another crisis and they want and deserve more than lip service
from the Prime Minister.
What Canadians expect from the government are some signs of
willingness to change, even if it breaks their Liberal hearts to have
a smaller federal role in a decentralized but unified country. People
realize that the status quo is not working and they want to see a
fresh start.
After last year's referendum, the Prime Minister struck a cabinet
committee to come up with the answers on national unity. Is this
national unity committee still meeting? When can we expect to see
the report for the Canadian people?
(1425 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to see that at long last, the Reform Party is
interested in the future of Canada. When I stood in the House and
told everyone that it was not possible to break up a country with a
one-vote majority, I well remember the members of the Reform
Party sided with the Bloc Quebecois on that issue.
I hope the Reform Party wakes up some day and reads the speech
from the throne in which the program for national unity was very
well stated. A big part of it will be completed after the meeting of
the first ministers Thursday and Friday of next week.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has done nothing to reassure Canadians that it has the
solutions to keep this great country together.
It has touted the national unity dream team but half of that team
is benched and the other half is silent. It stated that distinct society
status would solve the problem but it has been rejected time and
time again. Now, according to the polls, apparently more
Quebecers than ever feel that Quebec may separate. The
government has no plan and no team. The 10,000 patriots who were
here on the weekend have begged the Prime Minister to finally
show some leadership.
The unity minister said that we will have anarchy if the
separatists win another referendum.
What is the government's plan to prevent that from happening
and when will it announce it so that Canadians can have some
reassurance that the government has a handle on the national unity
situation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the people who came to the Hill yesterday would be
very delighted to know that the Reform Party supports bilingualism
in Canada. The people who came yesterday were from Montreal,
Quebec, Pontiac and so on. Many of them were anglophones from
Quebec who are in favour of the bilingualism policy of Canada
which the Reform Party has always rejected.
A moment ago, the hon. member referred to distinct society.
Again the contribution of the Reform Party was to vote against
distinct society. I hope that some day the Reform Party will wake
up. However, if we waited to have the support of the Reform Party
in order to solve this Canadian problem we would have no solution.
I guess we will have to solve the problem despite the Reform Party.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
only we had some plan from the Prime Minister. The government is
so far behind on this issue that it thinks it is first, but it has been
lapped by the Canadian people.
The truth is that the government is navel gazing over distinct
society and constitutional vetoes, ideas that went out of favour 30
years ago. Canadians know that the realignment of
federal-provincial power is a major consideration that will help to
bind the country together. Quebecers are not the problem. The
regions are not the problem. Ottawa's government is the problem.
Since the provinces refused to meet with the Prime Minister to
discuss constitutional change, will the federal government move
now and promise to give back to the provinces those areas of
jurisdiction which the Constitution states are theirs to administer?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has a copy of the speech from the throne
on his desk. Everything he has asked can be found in it.
The Minister of Human Resources Development, for example,
has moved on the labour management situation. We made
propositions to the provinces in many fields in the speech from the
throne. We hope to rebalance the federation. We want to clarify
jurisdictions. We want to eliminate duplication. However, the
Reform
3559
Party is four months late on that issue and on everything else it is
probably 40 years late.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue would like us to believe
that, by suspending the issuance of new advanced tax rulings
similar to the case of the $2 billion in family trusts transferred to
the U.S. tax free, she was closing the gaping tax loophole
denounced by the auditor general. Nothing could be further from
the truth. The ruling made by Revenue Canada in December 1991
is still in effect and constitutes a precedent that anyone can use to
avoid paying taxes.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister
admit that his revenue minister's inaction and his government's
refusal to investigate this scandal leaves wide open a loophole that
can still be used by owners of family trusts or by any millionaire?
(1430 )
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is patently wrong. There is action by this
government. The issue has been sent directly to the committee on
finance for advice and for information to come back to the minister
for his consideration.
This is nuts because quite frankly the committee is doing a very
expeditious job hearing witnesses from across the country on this
very important aspect of the Income Tax Act and we do look
forward to their recommendations.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government still refuses to shed light on the 1991 case.
That is why it is trying to sidestep the issue at the Standing
Committee on Finance. That is what is happening.
Even though we are facing one of our worst financial scandals,
the Prime Minister continues to sit on his hands. Whose interests is
he protecting in Canada, those of the Thomson family, the
Bronfman family, the Irving family, the Desmarais family, or all of
the above?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member seems to be indicating that he does not
agree with the democratic process, that he does not want to
participate in the democratic process. I understand that he has
walked out of the committee that we have asked to seriously look at
the Income Tax Act and provide good and full information to us on
several occasions.
I would ask him to get to the committee, to listen to the
witnesses who are there and to provide the best advice that he can
on behalf of Canadians from across this country.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
On March 27 the minister stated that employment insurance
premium surpluses must have an upper limit. The surplus is now
estimated to be $5 billion for this year alone. A majority of
Canadian pension fund managers recently stated that the primary
reason job creation in our country is stagnant is due to payroll
taxes.
Will the minister tell the Canadian people when enough is
enough and when the job destroying employment insurance payroll
tax will be reduced?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and
myself have said on a number of occasions that we are aware that
through a series of events we are now moving to a surplus position
in the EI account.
My hon. friend would know that a year ago, two years ago, three
years ago quite the opposite was the situation. The last thing that
the hon. member would want is to have a repeat situation of when
we were in a recession with very high levels of unemployment and
we were then faced with increases in the rate for premiums.
We are trying to make sure that we can set a level for a surplus in
the EI fund that is consistent with the historical trends in that fund.
We will be paying close attention to it.
I am sure that we will be able to satisfy the hon. member's
concern about making sure that we have a sufficient reserve in the
fund but also be able to address the whole question of payroll taxes,
including premiums for employment insurance.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): In that
case, Mr. Speaker, I take it that the minister would work toward
making the EI fund self-sustaining and actuarially sound. Had it
been actuarially sound previously we would not have to dip in so
deep this time. That is the major problem with the EI program. It
should be insurance.
The minister knows that chronic high unemployment and under
employment of Canada's youth is really a national disgrace. It robs
youth of self-respect, hope and a stake in our common good and our
common future.
If payroll taxes such as employment insurance and Canada
pension fund premiums affect the lowest paid and the most
3560
vulnerable first and most, why does the government continue to put
such a high reliance on job destroying payroll taxes to generate
revenue?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to have it both
ways. If the employment insurance fund is to be self-sustaining,
which in fact it is, because when it falls into deficit the government
is required to cover that deficit. The government and the taxpayers
are repaid as the employment insurance fund recovers. That has
been the case over the last year where the deficit was finally
cleaned up and now we are moving to a surplus position.
(1435 )
Unfortunately, neither actuaries, governments, the private sector
nor labour, for that matter, can predict exactly the requirements of
the employment insurance fund. It depends on the situation that
prevails in the economy at any given time.
The only thing we can do is try to be prudent. I understand the
hon. member's point with respect to the surplus. We have to be
careful not to let it increase beyond reasonable proportions.
As I indicated in my answer to his first question, I do not think
the hon. member or anyone else would like to see us go back to a
situation where in a recession, in addition to having a major drain
on the employment insurance fund, the government would have to
increase the premiums to try to reduce that deficit position.
It is always difficult to find a balance but as usual we will try to
do the best we can.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. What the
Liberal government is doing in the matter of family trusts is
outrageous, going as far as muzzling the public accounts
committee so as to not let the word out about how wealthy families
can avoid paying taxes. All the while, the key players in this matter
are still holding positions in the public service.
While hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake and the public
is expecting quick action, how can the Prime Minister, who is
hiding behind his minister of revenue, justify his government
condoning, by not taking action, the flight of capital, tax free?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me review the action we have taken.
On receipt of the report of the auditor general we acted that
very day and sent his concerns to the committees of this
Parliament, committees made up of members of this House that
represent Canadians, to look at very important aspects of the
Income Tax Act.
It is my understanding that the finance committee will review
those aspects of the Income Tax Act. I understand it has been
agreed at the public accounts committee to begin to review other
aspects, sure to be required, on return from the summer recess.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, given that the auditor general said it could
happen again, that the Deputy Minister of National Revenue
confirmed the auditor general's statement and that the Minister of
Revenue failed to introduce effective measures, why is the
government refusing to shed light on the $2 billion in family trusts
that were transferred, tax free, in 1991 and on other cases that may
have arisen since then?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member points out, this issue took place in
1991. It predates this government, but we are taking very direct and
important action on this concern.
I understand it was the hon. member himself who sat as chair on
the public accounts committee when the decision was made of
which order the issues presented by the auditor general would be
reviewed at finance committee and then at public accounts.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Justice has not moved to eliminate section 745 of the Criminal
Code that allows first degree murderers the right to appeal after
only serving 15 years of a life sentence. Since we have come to this
House Reformers have been asking for the repeal of this section.
Will the justice minister introduce legislation to repeal this
section of the Criminal Code?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I have
responded repeatedly to his questions and the questions of others
by saying that I do not believe that the repeal of section 745 is
appropriate.
I have also said that I believe strongly that changes could be
made to section 745 to address some of the real problems with the
section, some of the issues that have arisen. We have been speaking
with, we have been listening to, we have been analysing the
comments of a wide variety of people, not just my hon. col-
3561
league-I know his views on the subject-but also judges,
prosecutors, defence counsel, victims and victims rights groups.
The government will shortly introduce measures to strengthen
and improve section 745 of the Criminal Code. I hope when we do
that we will have the support of the hon. member and his party.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
encouraging to hear that the minister is going to move on this very
important subject.
Will the minister assure the House that the passage of the
legislation to which he has referred is not just a half measure like so
much of his legislation has been, and that it will be introduced in
time to deny Clifford Olson the opportunity to appeal his parole
before August 12 of this year?
(1440 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in order to determine whether
something is a half measure, one would have to know pretty well
what the extremes are. I do not think we will take the hon.
member's position on these issues as a point of reference for this
party.
I will not refer to any specific case, any specific crime or
offender because we do not legislate in respect of individual cases.
That is not the policy of the government. Our interest is in a process
with integrity which serves the interests of the Canadian people,
which ensures safety in society. In that regard we intend to propose
changes to section 745 which will strengthen it and improve the
process.
We will move shortly in that regard and I hope we will have the
support of the hon. member when we do so.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
Following the last Quebec referendum, the panic-stricken
federal government launched a vast propaganda operation to flood
the country, including Quebec, with Canadian flags. At a time
when the federal government has a duty to manage taxpayers'
money in a responsible manner, it is wasting that money in a
contradictory and irresponsible way.
How can the heritage minister explain that, because of the
federal government's sheer folly to flood Quebec with Canadian
flags, an ordinary citizen can manage to get up to 26,000 of these
flags?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the former Minister of Canadian
Heritage launched a campaign so that, on February 15, 1997, one
million flags will fly in Canada. Why not, Mr. Speaker? Why not
be proud to belong to this great country of ours?
We encourage every Canadian to fly our flag and, as part of the
ongoing campaign, one flag is given to every household. There is
no question of giving 20,000 to the same household.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not find it
indecent that, while her colleague, the Minister of Natural
Resources, is forced, because of a lack of money, to cut $7.2
million from the tokamak project, which is a job creating initiative
in Quebec, her own department is spending more than $7 million in
an inconsiderate way to buy kites and flags?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not find it indecent at all that sponsors from the
private sector support the flag promotion campaign and provide
financial support so that we can reach our objective of one million
flags by next year.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Tourists from the United States are major contributors to the
economic growth of Canada and of Guelph-Wellington. I would
like the minister to tell me what she is doing to improve access,
facilitate and encourage United States tourists to come to Canada.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government does understand the importance to our
economy of tourism and business travel. At Revenue Canada we
are constantly looking for ways to expedite and make it easier for
low risk travellers to Canada to get here without compromising our
commitment to safe homes and streets.
I am pleased to announce that last week we identified two new
programs, CANPASS for private boats and private aircraft which
will extend to low risk travellers the benefits of a preapproved
permit and a telephone reporting system to help expedite them
through customs and immigration without compromising the
security of our communities.
(1445)
Revenue Canada is committed to achieving the smart border. It
is programs like these that will make sure we achieve that goal.
3562
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance has stated the government stands four square
behind seniors. Yet he proposed in the budget to tax middle income
seniors at a rate 20 per cent higher than millionaires and
billionaires in the country.
To the minister of human resources, does standing four square
behind seniors mean helping them or squeezing taxes out of them
so they bleed?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate the hon.
member is not paying attention to the process going on across the
country. A group of people, including a member of Parliament who
has been heading the hearings, has been meeting with provincial
colleagues, with interveners and discussing the future of the
Canada pension plan.
The hon. member suggested that somehow the government is
looking at squeezing one group more than another. The whole idea
of the Canada pension plan is that it works for everyone.
We know how the Reform Party would like to squeeze seniors. It
would like to get rid of all pension plans and have people go to
mandatory RRSPs. That would be the big squeeze.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it seems the
minister has not read the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance.
The budget says that on top of normal taxation middle income
seniors will pay an additional 20 per cent clawback on their
income. That is an extra 20 per cent from this government.
I want to know why this government thinks that attacking seniors
who built this country is the way to solve the senior citizens' crisis
on pensions.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a unique
way of looking at a situation that allows for the recovery of
taxation from an individual with a certain level of income.
It is pretty hard to clawback middle income seniors and not
affect people at the higher end of the scale. I am sure the hon.
member in the wisdom he and his party exhibited over the weekend
would find a way to achieve even that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
At the llth international AIDS conference in Vancouver, next
July 7 to 12, over 5,000 scientific papers will be presented. For the
international scientific community, advances in knowledge and
research are holding out hope that AIDS can be transformed from a
fatal illness into one that is chronic. But the state of research in
Canada is looking quite a bit bleaker.
Can the Prime minister confirm the allegations of the Medical
Research Council of Canada to the effect that there is now no
longer a cent available for basic AIDS research in Canada?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if I understand the question from the hon. member, the Government
of Canada has provided moneys for the AIDS issue fully funded for
fiscal years 1996-97 and 1997-98.
We are in the process of doing some very extensive consultations
with a variety of different groups, particularly some of those
involved in research.
Later this day I have round table discussions with some of the
experts throughout the country on the Medical Research Council
and the role it plays in terms of funding for various diseases and a
variety of different items.
I assure the hon. member it is the intention of the government to,
where resources are available, assist all those organizations in
getting sufficient moneys for the purposes of research.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think the Medical Research Council can be all
wrong.
Does the minister not find this situation disgraceful, and what
does he intend to do to correct it, knowing that Canada ranks third
among G-7 countries for the rate of HIV infection, but that it comes
in dead last in HIV research?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should not get off course with rhetoric. We in
Canada have been very successful in managing the amount of
moneys we have relating to the whole AIDS issue.
(1450)
If the hon. member is asking whether more moneys can be made
available and whether it is necessary to get additional moneys, I
would be the first to say yes, but we have to work on a balanced
approach in terms of the money that is available.
I hope to further consultations with a variety of interest groups
associated with the AIDS file in order to come up with additional
3563
dollars and a further focused approach in order to find cures as well
as prevention measures to work for that community.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has
been revealed the immigration minister granted more than 1,500
special entry permits to dangerous criminals last year. Rapists,
suspected terrorists, murderers and drunk drivers who were
initially denied entry into Canada or who were ordered deported
now live here with the minister's personal blessing.
Front line immigration officers advised against admitting
criminals into Canada and the previous immigration minister
refused to listen.
What assurances will the minister give to Canadians that there
will not be repeat violations of the act and that criminals will be
shut out of the country?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is not a new question, because each
year the citizenship and immigration minister must table an annual
report here in the House regarding ministerial permits issued.
I would like to point out that, since 1990, there was a 73 per cent
drop in the number of ministerial permits issued by various
immigration officials and that they are issued only after a very
serious case study has been carried out, and for various reasons.
For example, it can be for strictly technical reasons, medical
reasons, or because an individual has committed a reprehensible
act several years earlier, but we are confident the person will not do
so in Canada. In short, with each passing year, we have become
more restrictive, and it is very clear that each time a decision is
made, it is for humanitarian reasons.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians want input into immigration policy. Instead they get
another minister with her head buried in the sand and an
immigration policy designed and driven by special interests.
In addition to the 1,500 special entry passes granted to criminals,
44 permits were issued to people previously deported, 10 more
were given to individuals suspected of terrorism and another 395
passes were granted to those who posed a health risk to others.
By issuing the permits, the minister has violated section 19 of
the Immigration Act. Why did the minister violate the Immigration
Act, thereby compromising the internal security and the public
health of Canadians?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, again, I repeat, these permits are issued on a
temporary basis for humanitarian reasons. I wonder who is burying
its head in the sand, when members of the Reform Party are writing
almost weekly requesting that people be admitted.
I have examples here. The member for Beaver River and the
member for Okanagan are asking us to admit to Canada people not
eligible under our legislation. But in Canada, we are very humane,
very welcoming, contrary to what the Reform member is saying.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
In response to a request from the Standing Committee on
Industry, the Canadian Bankers Association has now provided a
report on the relationship between the banks and small and medium
size enterprises.
How will this report assist our government to make sure small
businesses have the financial services they need in order to
flourish, to grow and to create new jobs?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since the time of the election the government has
identified small and medium size businesses as the sector of the
economy where most of the potential job growth lies. It has been
very important to deal with the issues the small business
community has been bringing to us. I suppose at the top of that list
would be access to financing.
(1455)
Repeatedly we have heard it needs access to financing not only
from governments but particularly from Canada's chartered banks.
The industry committee asked for the Canadian Bankers
Association to come forward with a baseline study which will
enable us to understand exactly what that relationship looks like
today and begin to pursue the policies that will ensure that in the
future the small and medium size businesses of Canada have the
level of capital they need, both debt and equity, in order to create
the jobs Canadians are looking for.
3564
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The second attempt at refloating the Irving Whale has now
begun. It is essential, in case a spill occurs, that the company have
adequate insurance to cover the cost of environmental damage. But
on page 43 of the last environmental assessment report, dated
March 1996, one reads that, as of now, the company's insurance
policy does not cover PCBs.
Can the minister certify that insurance contracts have been
revised and now cover PCBs. If so, can the minister table these
contracts in the House as soon as possible to reassure the public?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian public opinion overwhelmingly has requested
the Irving Whale be lifted because it proposes the lesser of the
various risk options. It must be said that no option is without its
risks.
The province of Quebec and its minister of the environment have
given a green light to the raising of the Irving Whale. There have
been four careful technical assessments done incorporating public
participation throughout. This morning the court has allowed and
approved the raising of the Irving Whale.
We are taking every precaution possible. I ask for the support of
the hon. member's party.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, nets will be set
in protest on Wednesday morning if the minister does not act to end
the racially segregated fishery in the Alberni Inlet. The minister
should not be surprised at further protests from fishermen if he is
planning similar fisheries on the Fraser River later this summer.
Will the minister not recognize that racially segregated fisheries
can only lead to confrontation and deep six the policy?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
will be aware that the Federal Court of Canada last week indicated
the fisheries complained of do not represent any harm to
commercial fisheries. The hon. member will be aware of that
because an injunction was refused to him.
The fisheries in question are part of the aboriginal fisheries
strategy which is enjoined upon the Government of Canada by
section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The catch allocation is modest, less than 10 per cent of the
expected returns, and under the terms of the agreement all net
profits from any fish sold are to be used for fisheries management
projects jointly agreed to by the department and by the First
Nations.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Women from every province and territory are marching against
poverty and are demanding in one strong voice that the Liberal
government keep its promise of a national child care program.
This weekend we saw the federal funds for child care cut by over
100 per cent from the original commitment. The Minister of
Finance has said he will not raise corporate taxes to help pay for
programs such as child care.
Why has the government made it a priority to please
corporations rather than look to the welfare of Canada's children?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we had a program and we submitted a proposal to the
provinces. It was very clear that it was to be a cost shared program.
We discussed it with the provinces, but the provinces were not
interested in participating in an expanded program for child care.
As it is within provincial authority, and it was written that it had
to be a joint program, and as the provinces did not want to move on
it, we respected their jurisdiction and we did not move. We
respected the constitutional responsibilities of the provinces as
well as the national responsibilities.
* * *
(1500 )
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
On June 7 the federal government hosted a forum to discuss
world hunger and food security with groups from across Canada.
As a result of these discussions is the minister contemplating any
changes so Canada can do more to help feed the world's hungry
people?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations is in the process of organizing
a world food summit which is to be held in Rome in November of
this year.
3565
The preparations for that summit began last year here in Canada
when we hosted the 50th anniversary celebrations marking the
founding of the Food and Agriculture Organization which was first
established in 1945 in Quebec City.
Canada is now in the process of putting together a position paper
to represent the views of Canadians. On June 7 representatives of
the agricultural, forestry and fisheries sectors were involved in
consultations on that paper together with representatives of the
provinces.
Canada intends to be thoroughly represented at the world food
summit in Rome because we do take very seriously our
international responsibility with respect to alleviating hunger in the
world.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Treasury Board's official languages report shows that anglophones
hold 5 per cent of federal government jobs in Quebec. The report
concludes that this number remains unsatisfactory.
The Canadian heritage report says nothing about this situation
and reveals the government accepts a French only policy in Quebec
which discriminates against the English community while
practising enforced bilingualism in the rest of Canada.
What will the heritage minister do to increase the representation
of Quebec anglophones in federal government jobs within that
province?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the jurisdictions of the various levels of
government should not be confused. This government's
responsibility is to help minorities of either official language
throughout Canada. Consequently, we give substantial help to the
French speaking population living in a minority situation, and to
the English speaking population in Quebec.
But employment practices at the provincial level are strictly a
provincial matter and are not within the purview of the
Government of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: I wish to draw to your attention the presence in
the gallery of a group of Commonwealth Fellows led by Robert
Doyle, member of Parliament for Malvern, Victoria, Australia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
3565
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official
languages the second report of the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal affairs and Northern Development dealing with
aboriginal education, intituled: ``Sharing the Knowledge: The Path
to Success and Equal Opportunities in Education''.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who were
involved, in whatever capacity, in the preparation of this report.
(1505)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): On June 4,
1996, notice was given of a bill, standing in the name of the
Minister of Transport, which included a royal recommendation.
When the item dealing with this bill was published in the Notice
Paper of June 5, 1996, the royal recommendation was omitted.
This mistake was repeated when the item was transferred into
today's Order Paper. A copy of the royal recommendation is
available at the Table. I regret any inconvenience this may have
caused hon. members.
* * *
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-44, an act for making the system of
Canadian ports competitive, efficient and commercially oriented,
providing for the establishing of port authorities and the divesting
of certain harbours and ports, for the commercialization of the St.
Lawrence Seaway and ferry services and other matters related to
maritime trade and transport and amending the Pilotage Act and
amending and repealing other Acts as a consequence.
3566
He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to advise the House that
I intend to move that this bill be referred to a committee before
second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-300, an act respecting the establishment
and award of a Canadian volunteer service medal and clasp for
United Nations peacekeeping to Canadians serving with a United
Nations peacekeeping force.
He said: Madam Speaker, as was said, this bill is an act
respecting the establishment and award of a Canadian volunteer
service medal and clasp for United Nations peacekeeping to
Canadians serving with a United Nations peacekeeping force.
This bill is introduced to correct a present oversight. The United
Nations now issues medals to Canadians who serve on
peacekeeping activities. Some time later, the Governor General
declares that United Nations medal to be a Canadian medal.
However, many of our peacekeepers do not accept this as
appropriate Canadian recognition, and desire that such service be
properly recognized by the award of a purely Canadian volunteer
service medal for peacekeeping.
Also included in this bill is the clasp which would provide visual
recognition of the great honour that was bestowed on Canada by
our peacekeepers when they won the Nobel peace award on
September 30, 1988.
This bill would provide for a clasp to be affixed on the medal to
indicate the people who earned that award.
All Canadians are justifiably proud of our contribution to
peacekeeping and it is most appropriate that we provide pure
Canadian recognition of that contribution to our world esteem.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1510 )
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to present three petitions from constituents of my
riding bearing approximately 75 signatures.
The petitioners express their opposition to Bill C-33, an
amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to table a
petition from my constituents,
The petitioners ask that Parliament enact Bill C-205 which was
introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West. The bill
would prohibit convicted criminals from profiting financially from
their crimes. I fully support that.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a number of petitions to table in reference to the
Canada Human Rights Act.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other
federal legislation that would provide for the inclusion of the
phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present a petition bearing the signatures of 71
constituents. Unfortunately it is a little outdated. It has to do with
term 17, the Newfoundland school amendments. I am happy to
present this petition on their behalf because they are concerned
about minority rights in that province.
The petitioners pray that Parliament not amend the Constitution
as requested by the Government of Newfoundland, and refer the
problem of educational reform in that province back to the
Government of Newfoundland for resolution by some other
non-constitutional procedure.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the pleasure to present three petitions, two of which relate to the
issue of the Canadian Human Rights Act, one bearing 44 signatures
and the other with 50 signatures.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
third petition I am happy to table is on the issue of euthanasia,
containing 51 signatures.
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I wish to present three petitions.
The first petition is from 43 of my constituents from the
Clarksburg and Thornbury area, calling on the Parliament of
Canada to prohibit criminals from profiting financially by selling
their stories for publication through the passing of Bill C-205.
3567
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, the second set of petitions is from
approximately 250 constituents from Collingwood and area,
calling on the Parliament of Canada to refrain from including
sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions from my riding
bearing several hundred signatures.
The petitioners are very concerned about the sentences for drunk
drivers who kill. They pray and request that Parliament proceed
immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code which will
ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of impaired
driving causing death would carry a minimum sentence of seven
years and a maximum sentence of fourteen years as outlined in
private member's Bill C-201, sponsored by the MP for Prince
George-Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present two petitions
which have been circulating across Canada. The first is from
Yellowknife, NWT.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition comes form Coburg, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House
that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability. Specifically, that fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and
others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
(1515 )
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition
which has been circulating all across the Outaouais region. This
petition has been signed by 1,500 Canadians.
The petitioners request that Parliament take the necessary
measures to guarantee that their properties and territories will
remain within the Canadian Confederation and make its intention
to do so known to the PQ government prior to a unilateral
declaration of independence or the next referendum on separation.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first has 75 signatures from British Columbians. They pray
that Parliament will consider the advisability of extending benefits
or compensation to veterans of the wartime merchant navy equal to
that enjoyed by veterans of World War II armed services.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by 203
individuals from British Columbia who are requesting that
Parliament not increase federal excise tax on gasoline and strongly
consider reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's
crumbling national highways.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to present a petition.
[English]
It comes from literally hundreds of merchant time mariners from
the second world war.
These petitioners call on Parliament to consider the advisability
of extending benefits or compensation to veterans of the wartime
merchant navy equal to those enjoyed by the veterans of Canada's
World War II armed services.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first is that
Parliament not amend the human rights act or the charter of rights
and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships. This petition is from B.C. and
Ontario residents.
3568
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the last two petitions are from people from Ontario. One is
from Toronto and area and the other is from other areas of Ontario.
The petitioners ask that Parliament support private member's
Motion No. 91 which calls for a binding national referendum to be
held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether they
are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on
demand.
I present these petitions with pleasure today.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to table three petitions signed by the constituents of
Lambton-Middlesex.
The petitioners request that Parliament refrain from passing into
law any bill extending family status or spousal benefits to same sex
partners and further that Parliament not amend the human rights
code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and
freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex benefits or of homosexuality.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition signed
by 105 residents of the greater Vancouver region requesting
Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
charter of rights and freedoms so as to extend to same sex
relationships.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
Question No. 19 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 19-Mr. Bellehumeur:
In the past five years, has there existed-within the Privy Council, the
Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, or elsewhere in the federal
government-an emergency measures co-ordinating unit; if so, who and what
are its past and present members, budget, meeting dates, and subjects of
discussion at each meeting; has this unit drawn up plans for emergency
situations or not and, if so, what are those plans?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Under the provisions of the Emergency
Preparedness Act (1988), all ministers of the crown are assigned
responsibility for emergency preparedness within their functional
areas. All departments of the federal government have an
emergency preparedness capability as required by the Emergencies
Act, also passed in 1988. Overall co-ordination is vested in the
minister responsible for emergency preparedness (MREP), the
Minister of National Defence. Emergency Preparedness Canada
(EPC) is that element of the public service charged with
implementing the minister's responsibilities in this regard.
EPC has been in existence in one form or another since 1939.
Most recently, and prior to 1992, EPC was identified by the
Emergency Preparedness Act as a separate branch of government
with its head, the executive director, reporting directly to the
MREP. Following the 1992 budget, the Emergency Preparedness
Act was amended to make EPC part of the Department of National
Defence and it is now a division within the deputy chief of defence
staff (DCDS) group in national defence headquarters.
EPC administers the Emergencies Act. That legislation sets out
the types of emergency for which the agency has co-ordinating
responsibility within the federal government as well as the roles of
cabinet and Parliament. The emergencies defined in the act are:
public emergency; public order emergency; international
emergency; and, war emergency. The legislation therefore covers a
range of situations from, for example, flood relief to war and it is
the responsibility of EPC to ensure that planning for the range of
possible emergencies has been undertaken. Consequently, it works
closely with federal departments and agencies as well as with
provincial authorities.
EPC executes its co-ordination role in a number of ways
including direct liaison with other government departments and
through a number of interdepartmental committees. The senior
committee is the Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee
(EPAC), chaired by the DCDS, with membership at the assistant
deputy minister level. The EPAC oversees the annual program of
work of the federal emergency preparedness community; provides
guidance; and advises the MREP as necessary.
EPC is a small organization of 89 full time employees (FTEs)
and an annual budget of approximately $15.5M (96/97). In addition
to its headquarters in Ottawa, EPC administers the Canadian
Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior, Ontario and
maintains small regional offices in each provincial capital to
provide liaison with counterpart provincial emergency measures
organizations.
In amplification of Emergency Preparedness Act, ``a federal
policy emergencies'', revised in 1995, provides detailed taskings to
the legislated ministerial responsibilities for emergency
preparedness and, where appropriate, designates individual federal
ministers as the ``lead'' for planning for specific types of
emergency. Examples of such lead roles include, the Solicitor
General for the national counterterrorism plan (NCTP); Health
Canada for the federal nuclear emergency response plan (FNERP);
and Emergency Preparedness Canada for the national earthquake
support plan (NESP). There is a broad spectrum of federal
emergency plans;
3569
some narrow and sectoral in scope; and others such as those
exemplified above, of a broad, multi-sectoral nature. EPC
maintains a co-ordinated listing of all such plans and, in the case of
the latter, co-ordinates the development of periodic exercises to test
and evaluate their effectiveness.
To elaborate on the NCTP, the Solicitor General is the lead
minister for dealing with the management of terrorist incidents in
Canada. As the minister responsible for the RCMP and the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service, his secretariat maintains
the NCTP. That plan sets out how the government will respond to
an incident with respect to, for instance, operational management
of the incident, communications, and the role of local and
provincial governments. Those who administer the plan are
responsible for ensuring that the government response to a terrorist
incident is co-ordinated and coherent.
In addition to co-ordination units with a national focus, the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade maintains a
capacity to respond to incidents abroad involving Canadians or
Canadian interests.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
if Question No. 2 could be made an Order for Return, this return
would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 2-Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville):
For each of the last five calendar years, how many claims have been made by
federal prisoners against the Government of Canada for injuries or damages
suffered while the prisoners were under the government's care in federal
penitentiaries, (a) how many of these claims have been settled, withdrawn or are
still pending, and (b) what is the amount of the initial claim and the amount of
the settlement in each case that has been settled?
Return tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): I rise on a point of
order, Madam Speaker. I would like to draw your attention for the
third time to the fact that, on March 11, that is three months ago, I
put four questions on the Order Paper, Questions Nos. 20, 21, 22
and 23, and requested, pursuant to the Standing Orders, that these
questions be answered within 45 days. That will be three months
ago tomorrow.
These questions deal with the transfer of the human resources
development department's regional management centre from
Trois-Rivières to Shawinigan. These questions were put in the
public interest, in the interest of the constituents of Trois-Rivières
and the whole region.
These questions come from a member of Parliament who,
according to our rules, has the right to question the executive
branch of government, who, in turn, has the responsibility to
answer these kinds of questions asked in the public interest.
(1520)
I therefore count on you, Madam Speaker, to make the necessary
representations with the executive so these questions get a proper,
honest and quick answer.
_____________________________________________
3569
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (child prostitution, child sex
tourism, criminal harassment and female genital mutilation) be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)): Madam Speaker, on
a point of order. I think there would be unanimous agreement to
allow me to speak in place of the hon. member for New
Westminster-Burnaby. He would resume his remarks after.
There are international visitors in town today and I would like to
make a presentation on this bill, which we are sponsoring. The
courtesy of the hon. member and of other members has been
agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, let me again repeat my appreciation especially to
3570
the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby and other
members of the House in allowing me to speak on the importance
of the bill. I want to speak in particular to the amendments under
Bill C-27 that relate to the sexual exploitation of children abroad.
Members will recall that during the throne speech we made a
commitment as a government to work toward international
consensus dealing with the exploitation of children in the whole
area of labour, standards and rights.
One of the most tragic and vicious aspects of that whole problem
is there has been a burgeoning and growing sex industry of tourism
being sponsored abroad in which tourism operators and others
organize various initiatives and ventures in which people will leave
their home country and go to foreign countries to sexually exploit
or molest young children.
This has been a matter of deep concern since we had the
convention on the rights of the child. I believe about 185 countries
have specifically ratified the convention, but as yet there has not
been an attempt to find a full fledged international answer to the
problem.
Instead what has taken place is that a number of individual
countries have now taken the initiative to extend the opportunity of
their own legal system where there is consent by the country
involved to take legal action against residents or citizens of their
own country in this kind of transgression.
I am convinced the amendments brought forward today are one
of the strongest signals we can send internationally to expose the
full force of the Canadian criminal law with our own citizens in
order to specifically prohibit the use of children for sexual
purposes.
There has been overwhelming evidence these kind of offences
are growing in number. It has been documented by national
revenue that Canadian citizens go abroad to take advantage of
children in other countries. The Sri Lanka and Philippine
governments have reported arrests of Canadian residents in relation
to such offences. During foreign investigations Canadians have
been identified as being members of international pedophile
networks. As a result we think it is very important that Canada take
some responsibility for these kinds of actions.
[Translation]
Passing legislation that makes sexual tourism involving children
a criminal act sends a clear message that this activity is neither
tolerable nor acceptable.
Canada is not alone in its efforts. In fact, the international
community is united in supporting the passing of such legislation.
There are important precedents. I am thinking here of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada has
ratified; I am thinking of the work started by the international
community, such as that initiated by the Human Rights
Commission; and, finally, I am thinking of some 10 nations that
have already passed such legislation.
[English]
One of the questions that has emerged by certain critics or
commentaries is can such things work. Clearly we are breaking
some new ground.
Other countries such as Australia and New Zealand now have
this law on the books, as does the United States and several
European countries. By use of modern technologies such as video
conferencing and taping it is possible to take evidence abroad and
use it within our courts with minimum difficulty. What we
discovered is that there already have been some prosecutions.
(1525)
What is important is the deterrent effect it has, knowing there is
a law on the books, a possibility to prosecute. In many countries of
a developing nature there is not the same effective force of a legal
system as we have providing a strong and effective message that
they should not do it, they cannot do it and they will be punished if
they do it. The legislation not only gives children that kind of
protection but provides for a higher standard and level of activity.
Canada intends to participate actively in the conference on
commercial sexual exploitation being held in Sweden at the end of
the summer. This international meeting will bring together for the
first time government representatives, UN agencies, police
enforcement officers, academic institutions, health professionals
and representatives of the tourism industry to see whether they can
do this on a unilateral basis, country by country, and get the support
for an international convention adopted by all countries.
We hope by having this legislation passed now when we go to the
conference in Sweden we can stand up as Canadians and say we are
part of a vanguard to take real issue, to take a real stand against one
of the most vicious and venal kinds of exploitation, that of helpless
children living in dire straits and in serious circumstances.
Once again I thank the House for its courtesy and its indulgence.
I hope this gives me an opportunity to say there is a chance for
Canadians to show internationally that we are prepared to take real,
specific efforts to protect children right around the world.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is good to hear the minister make some rare
comments on justice matters.
It is rumoured he is one of those in cabinet who stands in the way
of more actively tightening the Criminal Code. I am pleased now to
hear he supports some Criminal Code activism. Even when the
outcome is not entirely certain, we can be bold in these kinds of
matters. That is to be encouraged.
Related to the content of the bill before the House, the justice
minister knows my private members' bill has been introduced. I
3571
think he would agree that by strengthening the punishment in
section 213 of the code we would strengthen the attack on the
sex trade.
The minister is hesitant on the proposal. I suggest he talk to his
colleague in cabinet, the Minister for International Trade. In 1989
when the minister was the mayor of Toronto he appeared before the
Standing Committee on Justice.
For argument's sake it would be beneficial to he read the former
mayor's comments on section 213: ``I support these changes as
well as other recommendations our police are putting forward to
help us once again regain control of our streets, namely that this
offence be changed from a summary offence to a hybrid offence,
requiring that those arrested be fingerprinted and photographed,
which is important in dealing with runaways who can change their
identities and their names and with others who are trying to avoid
prosecution, and that it remain in addition to that within the
absolute jurisdiction of a provincial court judge''.
Certainly there is consensus with the provincial attorneys
general that section 213 should become a hybrid offence. If the
minister is willing, I would be more than happy to withdraw my bill
on the condition that such an amendment would be added to Bill
C-27 at committee stage, as it directly relates to the content of the
bill.
The minister and other members of the House should understand
Reformers are not here to continuously oppose government
legislation. Rather, we are here to offer constructive criticism and
valid suggestions.
I hope the minister gives my offer some serious consideration
not only for my benefit or for his but for the benefit of Canadian
communities like mine, New Westminster-Burnaby, and his,
Etobicoke Centre. In other words, create the right legal climate and
we will see positive change emerge for safer communities.
In 1991-92 the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics completed
studies in Ontario and Alberta revealing what type of sentences
were handed down to those communicating for the purposes of
prostitution.
In Ontario it was found that 44 per cent of charges against
women, mainly prostitution charges, resulted in prison terms
followed by probation at 26 per cent, fines at 22 per cent and
absolute discharges at 8 per cent. Of the sentences imposed, the
medium prison term was only 10 days. Of those who received
fines, the medium fine amounted to a mere $150.
(1530 )
Alternatively in Alberta, fines were the most frequent
dispositions for communicating convictions among women, who
were mainly prostitutes. Sixty-six per cent of charges against
women resulted in fines, followed by prison terms at 19 per cent,
probation at 15 per cent and absolute discharges at 2 per cent. Of
those who were imprisoned, the median prison term was just 30
days. Of those who received fines, the median fine amounted to
about $200.
Any way we look at these statistics, it tells us that the penalties
associated with prostitution are too weak. The sex trade flourishes.
The Criminal Code needs to be strengthened. Reformers have been
telling the minister this for years. It is good to see he has finally
listened and is at least willing to deal with the subject in law rather
than just endless study after study.
I commend the minister for the changes he made to section
212(4). The section now reads: ``Every person who, in any place,
obtains or attempts to obtain for consideration the sexual services
of a person who is under the age of 18 years or who that person
believes is under the age of 18 years is guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five
years''.
There is a real problem with prostitutes under the age of 18
years. The widely known Badgley committee report on sexual
offences against children and youth done in 1984 discovered that
approximately one-half of prostitutes interviewed entered the
prostitution trade when they were under the age of 16. Further,
almost 96 per cent of those interviewed said that they had become
prostitutes before the age of 18.
It is the ease of entry into the trade via the street that facilitates
the young to become involved. When prostitutes are asked to
describe street life, all they give are negative assessments. In fact I
would guarantee that if most had their lives to live over again,
every one of them would not choose the sex trade lifestyle.
J. Lowman from the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser
University found that most prostitutes would advise a young person
not to get involved in the life. Lowman found that for many street
prostitutes it is the fact that prostitution provides money at all that
is the necessary condition of both their turning out and their
remaining in the business. If this were not the case it is difficult to
see why so many prostitutes stay in the business when they offer
such thoroughly negative appraisals of it. It is a trap that is a wide
open entry to life on the street. It is a downward spiral where
alternatives to change become very hard to find.
A local reporter in my riding did a story on prostitution a couple
of years ago. While researching it he approached a prostitute and
the response was: ``I am under age. Don't take my picture. Put my
picture in your paper and my parents will sue you''. I thought that
was rather interesting. Here she was performing an illegal act and
she was talking about suing the reporter for wanting to take her
picture for a story. I guess she knew the justice system better at 17
years of age than most people will ever begin to know it in their
lifetime.
3572
The same can be said about the Young Offenders Act. The
11-year old who repeatedly steals cars knows full well the police
cannot touch him until he is 12. Like the prostitutes on the street,
the young offenders know exactly what they can get away with.
Capacity creates its own demand.
I want to touch on another subject in Bill C-27 and perhaps add
some comments on the issue of the sex trade overseas. Clause 1 of
the bill adds a new section to the Criminal Code dealing with those
who obtain sexual services from minors outside of Canada. This is
an abhorrent practice which must be outlawed not only in Canada
but throughout the rest of the world. There are countries in the
world whose laws are much more liberal or lenient than those here
in Canada. It is in these countries that law breakers are finding their
profits.
The preamble to this bill states: ``Whereas, by ratifying the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada has
undertaken to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation
and sexual abuse, and to take measures to prevent the exploitative
use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices''.
In Thailand with a population of 56 million, 2.8 million are said
to be prostitutes. Incredible. Of those 2.8 million, over 800,000 are
said to be under 16 years of age. A July 1994 report for the Good
Shepherd Sisters, a Thailand drop-in centre, said that a great
number of the country's five million tourists per year are travellers
on organized sex tours from Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia,
Europe and the United States. Although Canada was not included
on that list, I find it hard to believe that such activity is not being
orchestrated from this country as well.
According to those who have researched this entire area of the
sex trade, articles on child prostitution overseas regularly appear in
pedophile newspapers. One article that appeared in the newsletter
of the North American Man/Boy Love Association rhapsodised
about a 12-year old Asian boy who truly loved his work. The writer
of the article went on to say: ``Weigh the pros and cons of
becoming involved yourself in sex tourism overseas. Seek and find
love from American boys on a platonic, purely emotional level. For
sexual satisfaction, travel once or twice yearly overseas. You might
get arrested overseas for patronizing a boy prostitute. But the legal
consequences of being caught patronizing a boy prostitute in a
friendly place overseas will be less severe''.
(1535)
A pedophile was advised by friends to go to Asia where
thousands of kids were there just for the picking. He attended a
NAMBLA meeting and afterward confided to a member that he
wanted to go to Thailand but he did not know how to set it up. He
was told it was no problem, that he would be given a contact and he
could arrange everything. A few weeks later he was with one of
those who were there for the picking.
A convicted child molester, after his release from prison,
enjoyed telling children in his neighbourhood that the boys he had
hired in Thailand charged only $8 or $9. He was considering
moving there, shortly before he disappeared, to take advantage of
that country's ``more mature cultural attitudes''.
Australia, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the United States all
have laws now that allow prosecution of child sex tourists upon
their return home. However some critics from these countries are
sceptical that the law will be effective. One law professor from
Australia stated:
The enactment of such legislation will be an important symbolic and
polit-ical statement. However, there is real danger that, if the legislation isnot accompanied by effective enforcement measures at the national and
international level, its promises could turn out to be rather
hollow-.Prosecuting a sexual offence where a child has been the victim is a
difficult enough task in any event; when it is further complicated by the
problems of obtaining evidence in a foreign country, ensuring the willingness of
witnesses to testify in that country where proceedings are conducted in a foreign
language, that task becomes even more onerous. Furthermore, the reasons for
the lack of effective enforcement of local laws in certain countries may also
result in a lack of the close law enforcement co-operation needed to put together
a case of this sort.
This statement has a great deal of weight and attention should be
paid to it.
The section of Bill C-27 dealing with child sex tourism sounds
good but the bill itself does not outline how the government is
going to enforce it. Perhaps someone from the government side
will be able to explain this further in today's ensuing debate. I look
forward to hearing their reasoning. It is the Canadian government's
duty to make certain that it does not only follow through on
international agreements but that it also be a leader by its actions.
As we all know, it is actions and not words that put a stop to crime.
Bill C-27 is a helpful bill but it is not a great bill. A great bill
would have made changes to section 213 of the Criminal Code.
However, the minister is well aware of my private member's bill,
Bill C-248. I believe he realizes that to properly curb prostitution
this section needs to be amended. He knows that changes to section
213 would assist the police, allowing fingerprinting and easier
search access to take place.
This bill could have repealed section 745 or any number of other
things.
In summary, the bill has more to do with optics rather than
substance. It is not just the justice minister and his Liberal
philosophy which fall short; it is his cabinet colleagues and the
Prime Minister who failed to give the justice minister the latitude
he needs to bring in appropriate adjustments to the Criminal Code.
The government's failure to legislate on criminal justice matters
3573
has to do with an old style attitude of being a system defender
rather than a system changer.
Canadians in general have little confidence or praise for the
results which come from our criminal courts. Since it is largely a
Liberal system, Canadians can understand why this government
will never be known as the law and order group or the government
that has the courage to govern on behalf of ordinary Canadians and
provide safer streets.
The bill before the House today does so little when so much
needs to be done. I call on the minister to quickly and
comprehensively deal with the subjects that are only lightly
touched upon in this bill.
I will be supporting Bill C-27. I hope my hon. friends across the
floor will also be considerate when Reformers submit amendments
to make this bill a better bill and more reflective of mainstream
Canadian values.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in
this debate. First, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member
for Québec, for giving me the chance to speak on the matter, since
she put forward her own motions and private member's bills on this
issue in 1994 and 1995.
(1540)
I commend her and pay tribute to her because it is thanks to her
work and interventions that the government was sensitized to this
subject and finally decided to act by introducing Bill C-27 we have
before us today.
So, as the hon. member for Québec mentioned, the official
opposition will support this bill because it is a step in the right
direction, although amendments should be passed not only to
improve its content, but also to ensure its objectives can be reached
be more efficiently.
I want to take a few minutes to deal with the sex tourism aspect
of this bill. Obviously, when we think of sex tourism, we
immediately think of the moral issue. Personally, I find it
unacceptable that adults-mostly men, but I am told that some
women are also into this practice-go to foreign countries where
the economic situation is always extremely bad and take advantage
of it-as I will demonstrate in my intervention-to sexually abuse
children aged 10 or even younger sometimes. Again, these are boys
as well as girls.
This practice is obviously unacceptable. We must strongly
denounce it without beating about the bush. Adults seeking such
services must know that Canadians, and Quebecers of course, as
well as their representatives do not condone those activities, and
this is why, I am sure of it, a vast majority of the members of the
House will support this bill.
But beyond the moral issue, there is also an issue of economic
rights. We must ask the following question: How is it that in these
countries where child sex tourism is practised, the common
characteristic is the extreme poverty of the people? Asian and
African countries as well as South American and Central American
countries and Indonesia all have in common an unacceptable,
terrible economic situation where people live naturally under
inhuman conditions. I will come back to this in order to link this
situation to the bill before us and to measures the government
should take in this regard.
I would also like to raise the following issues.
(1545)
On the subject of sex tourism, I would like to explain what is
meant by that, to say who practices that kind of tourism, why it
exists and how, finally, we can put an end to it. Bill C-27 gives an
answer to the last question by making sure Canadian residents and
Canadian citizens will run the risk, with the passing of this bill, of
being prosecuted for having taken part in sex tourism activities
outside Canada.
I know that the critic for the Bloc Quebecois will propose
amendments to make sure that the bill will apply to every person in
Canada because, according to the analysis that we, the official
opposition, make of it, some categories of citizens could escape the
application of the act. It could be the case of political refugees and
citizens awaiting permanent resident status or Canadian
citizenship. So, my colleague will move amendments.
But let us go back to my first question: What is sexual tourism?
As I already said, it is the practice consisting in going out of
Canada-of course, it could also be inside Canada-to sexually
abuse boys and girls who are generally under the age of 10. I have
been told about children aged 6, 7 or 8, which is totally
unacceptable according to the moral code we have in Canada, and
also according to our Criminal Code.
Who practices sexual tourism? I would say that no particular
category of people can be excluded automatically. However, we
can easily identify two categories of sexual tourists. First, there are
men in general. I am convinced that if data were available or if we
could make a precise study of people who practice sexual tourism,
we would discover that the great majority are men. I do not
challenge this in the least, but it would also seem that there are also
a few women.
There is another category of people that is singled out: the
paedophiles. When we hear about paedophilia, we have a tendency
to associate it with homosexuality. We saw it during the debate on
Bill C-33; several members, particularly Reform members and a
number of Liberal members, made this connection without any
restraint to serve their political cause. Yet we know full well, and I
think it is particularly true in the case of sex tourism, that the
victims are, once again, mostly young girls.
3574
All the reports I have personally seen on television, heard on
the radio or read in newspapers or trade journals lead to the
conclusion that the victims are mostly girls.
It does not matter whether the victim of child sexual abuse
happens to be a boy or a girl, it is totally unacceptable in both
cases. However, I wanted to make this distinction since it is easy,
specially for some of our colleagues, to make this connection and
to lead the public to believe that pedophilia is practised only by
homosexuals when it is absolutely not the case.
(1550)
Why does sex tourism exist? It is, I think, the basic question we
have to ask ourselves. First, I will look at it from the perspective of
the client. It has been mentioned that people who practice that kind
of tourism in other countries do it knowing full well that our laws
prohibit such activities here, in Canada. The Criminal Code is very
clear on that. People who do it outside Canada are perfectly aware
that it is against our laws and that it is contrary to the moral
standards adhered to in Canada. This is also true in most European
countries.
They do it because many of these people consider that, since
they are in a country where the culture is different from ours, the
moral standards are more liberal. I think of a Radio-Canada
television report we saw a few weeks ago precisely on sex tourism.
In that report, a French national was interviewed by a reporter
who asked him: ``Why are you, a French citizen, fully aware of the
fact that you could not do in your country what you are doing
here''-they were in Dominican Republic-``taking advantage of
young girls of 16, 15, 14 years of age and sometimes even
younger?'' He gave a direct and very blunt answer, saying: ``Yes, I
am perfectly aware that I could not do the same thing in my
country, but here, usage and customs are different and we can do
this sort of thing''.
It is awful to see people who, I am sure, are intelligent, who are
perfectly aware of the moral code and who would deem
unacceptable such practices for themselves or their fellow citizens
in their own country, thinking that this is acceptable when they are
in Dominican Republic simply because they are abroad, and have
concluded that customs, usage and attitudes are different.
If I presented the case of a French citizen, it was not to chastize
our friends in France, but because it was a French national who was
interviewed in the report I am referring to. He could have been
from Canada, Germany or anywhere else in the world. It is
completely unacceptable.
I truly believe that, before he leaves our country, such a bill will
send the client a clear message to the effect that such practices are
intolerable both in our country and throughout the world. We will
not accept that, anywhere in the world, children be used for
purposes of child sex tourism or the sex trade.
(1555)
I said at the beginning of my remarks that another problem needs
to be identified. Even if this bill were to be passed and even if,
overnight, we started to prosecute individuals who engage in this
sort of activity, I am convinced that the problem will not
automatically be resolved. It will be only partially solved. This bill
will allow prosecution of individuals, to set an example and to send
a message, as I said earlier, to the public, so that individuals will
think twice before engaging in this sort of activity, and prosecution
of organizations as well.
When one talks about procurers, one refers to individuals whose
commercial activities involve promoting, directing customers to
countries where child sex tourism is possible. These people will be
prosecuted. We shall be certainly effective to a degree, but the
problem will be far from resolved. If in some countries, children
are sexually abused, it is not a matter of customs or morals, it is
essentially and basically for economic reasons.
I can give examples. In La Presse, this morning, there was an
article which mentioned that 73 million children in the world work.
I am not saying that 73 million children are sexually abused, but
that 73 million children are victims of what comes close to forced
labour, slavery. Many of these children are, of course, forced to
submit to sexual acts. Most of the countries where children work
and where there is sexual tourism are located in Africa, Asia and
Latin America. For example, if you compare Burkina Faso, where
51 per cent of children work, to Italy, since it is on our list, where
0.3 per cent of children aged 10 to 14 work, you can see there is a
significant difference.
The point is that even if we do adopt this bill, with which I agree
wholeheartedly and which I will support, the Canadian government
must realize that to solve the problem, we will have to help these
populations and their governments, whenever possible, to improve
their financial situation. These children could be our own, they are
not even 14 or 15 yet, not even 10 in some cases, and more often
than not they are homeless, with no one to turn to for help, and they
have no choice but to do anything they can to survive and eat. This
is the type of situation where children become slaves, work in
shops for almost no salary at all and find themselves on the streets
where they are easy prey for sexual tourists.
This is what I had to say. I say yes, we must adopt this bill, but
we must also take other measures.
(1600)
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to make a couple of comments on what my Bloc
colleague just said regarding the whole problem of sexual tourism,
3575
which is one of the aspects Bill C-27 deals with. I know he is quite
sensitive, given his responsibilities on the Standing Committee on
Human Rights.
We are going to vote in favour of this bill; and I see that my
colleague agrees that it should be amended. I concur with him-I
said it this morning already, but I would like to say it again-the
categories of people liable to be prosecuted should be broadened to
include all those contributing to the transportation of tourists, such
as travel agencies promoting this kind of tourism.
As my colleague mentioned earlier, even if we have a piece of
legislation here, we must also discourage agencies from promoting
sexual tourism abroad; they are a real plague.
We were given a vivid picture of the social status and living
conditions of these young children. They are cheated of their
childhood, of their youth, on the pretext-I have heard this
often-of contributing to the economy in developing countries. I
believe there are others ways to go about it.
Passing this bill is a step in the right direction, and I really
appreciate it, but I would like the minister to consider certain
amendments to give it more teeth. As I said before, this part of Bill
C-27 deals with sexual tourism.
I thank my colleague for speaking on this subject today, given
that he sits on the Standing Committee on Human Rights which
include the rights of children and their physical integrity. The Bloc
Quebecois is deeply committed to protecting these rights, and it
does so daily.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Madam
Speaker, my colleague from Quebec was absolutely right to say
that, as my party's human rights critic, I had to intervene in this
debate. I would like to add a few points to her comments.
The human rights standing committee has been discussing and is
still discussing the issue of human rights outside Canada. Canada
being a country with a good international reputation, we have the
responsibility to also give a clear message about human rights
around the world.
I had the opportunity on several occasions to condemn the
current government's policy, particularly the one of our Prime
Minister, who is showing laxness about human rights. More often
than not, human rights are used as a bargaining chip in international
trade. That is not the policy that should be followed. Of course, we
must be open to international trade with all nations. I consider that,
very often, boycotts are totally useless, but a clear message must
also be sent regarding respect for human rights.
This issue allows us to take action in that direction, first, by
sending a clear message to our own fellow citizens, telling them we
will not accept that they go outside Canada to abuse young people.
The second message is, we must be concerned about these victims,
because, as I said earlier, we must be aware that even the best
legislation will not be enforced perfectly. So, the best way to solve
this problem is to ensure these people, who are in an unacceptable
and terrible economic situation, can improve their lot.
(1605)
We will do this, first, by supporting economic initiatives, but
also by asking these countries to adopt democratic rules, that is, to
allow their people in general to express themselves in free
elections, since, very often, they find themselves in systems where
democracy is totally disregarded, and by providing services to their
people.
I said earlier and I repeat, and this seems fundamental to me, if
the children we are talking about today, who are abused everywhere
in the world, were in school, in other words, if they were in the
same situation as our own children here in Canada, if the families
of these children could take care of them, provide food and shelter,
ensure they go to school, take them in hand and keep an eye on
them, we would not be discussing this problem, at least not as
much as we are doing now. So, we must consider the two aspects.
As my colleague mentioned earlier, it is really as a critic, I do it
personally because I believe in these issues, but it is also as the
official opposition critic for human rights that I want to bring this
aspect to the House's attention.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-27.
It is interesting to read the preamble of the bill. The government
is trying to set the stage by using what appears to be a lot of red
book promises to indicate where this bill is hoping to go. My
concern is that although the direction is fine, although the
government is dealing with issues that need to be dealt with, it
seems to be falling short of going all the way.
It is important to support the government's direction and the
move toward addressing these issues. However, I encourage the
government to have the committee look at this bill and then look at
the committee's recommendations to flesh the bill out a bit more
and to seriously consider taking to a higher degree the steps the
government is taking in many of these areas.
I want to talk about a couple of specific issues, one of which is
child prostitution. I use my householders for two-way
communication in my constituency and I get a good number of
responses. I put a couple of questions in one of my householders
last fall to which I received 4,386 responses.
3576
One of the questions I asked was: Do you believe that
prostitution should be legalized and regulated by the provincial
government and the municipalities? The reason I asked it was that
a number of people had talked about the need to get control over
prostitution in their communities. My constituency is very
conservative and I was really amazed and surprised by the
response. Over 54 per cent voted yes, they wanted prostitution to
be legalized and regulated.
I also offer an opportunity in the householders for constituents to
give comments. The comments fleshed out why a very
conservative community with traditional families and a senior
population thought that maybe it was time to legalize and regulate
prostitution. Many of the comments in those 4,300 responses dealt
with child prostitution. They thought it was time for some
regulation to be brought in to try to keep young people off the
streets, to try to somehow deal with a problem they thought was
increasing.
(1610 )
Daily we see the tragedy of young people who for whatever
reason end up on the street trying to make a living or who are
forced to make a living by prostituting themselves. They are young
boys and young girls. In urban centres, the bigger cities, their age
can be as low as 12 or 13 years. I do not think there is any person in
this country who feels that is something we want to encourage or
promote. Every Canadian is concerned about young children who
are vulnerable, who should have more to look forward to than
prostituting themselves.
I look at the amendment the government is proposing, a
mandatory minimum of five years for profiting from juvenile
delinquency. That acknowledges it should get some sentence but I
would suggest there may be cases where we would want it to be
more than five years. I understand that is a minimum but we have
seen in our justice system that a minimum almost establishes the
norm. Whatever the minimum sentence is tends to be the sentence
that is given out. The government is going to provide measures to
facilitate the arrests. It is nice to know there will be something
there to support it.
The government is talking about making it easier for young
people to testify against their pimps. They will have some
protection so they will not be identified, which I think is very
important. Many of those young people are there because they
cannot get out, because of threats of bodily harm from their pimps.
It is very important if we want to stop this from happening that we
make it easier for them to report their pimps and to bring our
attention to it.
The other aspect is making it illegal to procure somebody under
18 years. I have concerns that just putting in provisions to make it
illegal is not going to stop it. It is already illegal for the 12 and
13-year olds to be on the streets prostituting. We have to do more
than just put it in legislation. We have to give the courts the teeth
and society the resources to deal with the problem of our young
people on the streets. We need preventative measures. We need to
give these young people other options, some resources they can go
to when they are pulled off the street.
The seriousness of child prostitution or the vulnerability of
young people who are on the street was made very clear to me by a
tragedy that happened in my community when Melanie Carpenter
was murdered. The individual who murdered Melanie Carpenter
had a history of violently assaulting two young prostitutes in the
Toronto area to the point where they feared for their lives. The
sentence that individual got was two years less a day. Because the
young people were prostitutes, it was felt there was an element of
consent and therefore it was not serious.
We as Canadian legislators have to recognize that the courts have
a very important role to play. I hope this legislation and the changes
to it will send a very strong message to the courts that Canadians
want the courts, the prosecutors, the defence attorneys and the
judges to treat seriously people who are encouraging and keeping
young people in prostitution and people who are using the child
prostitutes.
I will move on to the changes in this legislation that would bring
what is called tourist prostitution to an end. The government is
recognizing that we cannot condone the use of child prostitutes
even if it happens outside of our country. If Canadian citizens are
going to Thailand, the Philippines or wherever to avail themselves
of child prostitutes, it should be condemned and we should come
down with the force of the law.
(1615)
I commend the government for taking the steps of including
charges against Canadians who are availing themselves of child
prostitutes outside of Canada. It is something that is being
addressed by other countries around the world. Canada is smart in
co-operating and becoming part of the international community
that is trying to bring an end to this type of abuse of children.
I am reminded of a program I saw a few months ago on CBC. It
was a documentary on a Thai group which was trying to relocate
young children who had been kidnapped from their rural
communities. Many of these children were six to eight years old
when they were forcibly removed from their rural communities and
put into prostitution in the main cities.
The documentary followed who the children were, how they
were removed, how they were taken into the main cities and also
who was using the child prostitution services. It was quite
sickening to see the aeroplanes full of individuals from North
America, Australia, Europe, from all over the world who were
visiting those communities for one purpose only, to use these six,
eight and ten year old children for sexual gratification. That is not
something Canadians encourage or support. I commend the
government in its
3577
attempt to bring Canada into the international community by trying
to deal with those issues.
There is also the issue of female genital mutilation. I was pleased
to support one of our hon. colleagues from the Bloc who introduced
a private member's bill to bring something into the Criminal Code
that would deal with the issue here in Canada.
I am pleased the government is acknowledging that something
has to be done, that female genital mutilation has to be considered
to be illegal in this country but I worry that it has not gone far
enough. I worry that it is only going to protect young women under
the age of 18. A 19-year old girl who is facing that situation needs
our protection just as much as a 17-year old does.
There should not be an age limit placed on this protection. The
procedure of female genital mutilation should be made illegal.
Anybody who is aiding, abetting, recommending or supporting it
should be charged as such and treated with all the force of the law.
We have to send a very strong message to all people who live in our
country that this procedure is something which is not acceptable.
I am concerned with the wording in the legislation which allows
for an exception for the medical community. I have a lot of respect
for the medical community and I do not for minute want to suggest
that there will be an abuse of it. I know there are circumstances
where reconstructive surgery and other things that deal with female
genital situations are needed.
I want to make sure that this legislation would not allow a
medical doctor who agrees with the practice to be able to continue
the practice in Canada for whatever reason. That area needs to be
looked at more closely. We have to make sure the full protection is
there, not just for women under 18, but for all women who are
faced with this kind of invasive attack on their person. We have to
make sure there is no element where it can be abused in Canada.
(1620 )
I commend the government for having considered the private
member's bill which one of our honourable colleagues presented,
which was included in this legislation. Again I would have liked
the government to have been a little more definitive and a little
tougher on that issue.
I will briefly touch upon the issue of stalking and first degree
murder. I do not think there is any question that Canadians want
individuals who deliberately harass, stalk and threaten another
person to be taken to the absolute limit of prosecution. However, I
do have to wonder about whether we can justify a first degree
murder charge for somebody who was not intending to murder. The
full force of the law should be against anybody who is harassing,
attacking or threatening.
I have been very upset many times over the past couple of years
with the limitation that our law enforcement officers have in
protecting individuals who are being stalked or harassed by a
predator, an ex-spouse or whomever. There has to be more
protection. The government and the courts must deal with it more
seriously.
I am not sure that those people should be automatically charged
with first degree murder. Our legal system has the ability to charge
those offenders with second degree murder, or first degree murder
if it can be proven that the intent of the stalking or the harassment
was to kill. If the proof is not there, I have difficulty with the fact
that automatically if a person has been involved in stalking they
will be charged with first degree murder.
This legislation is going in the right direction. I like the fact that
the government seems to be listening to a number of issues which
private members are bringing forward. I like the idea that the
government is trying to address the concerns of safety for women
and children. However, this legislation needs work.
I hope that my Reform colleagues, Bloc members and certainly
government members who sit on the justice committee will look at
areas where the legislation can be improved and toughened to
protect a broader scope of Canadian women and children. I hope
these changes will see the light of day to make the bill much better.
The bill has a good beginning, but it needs work. I hope the justice
minister and the government will allow input from the committee
to make it a better bill.
I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to speak on
this legislation. I hope the bill becomes much stronger in the days
to come.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
happy to see that other members of this House will support some of
the amendments I proposed in my speech on Bill C-27, more
specifically on genital mutilation and sex tourism.
I note that my colleague who just spoke also agrees with me on
the age limit. I do not see why there should be an age limit and why
the practice of genital mutilation should be allowed in some cases
for women over the age of 18. I think there should be no age limit.
If we want to send a clear message to cultural communities and
to eliminate this practice, there must be no exceptions. What kind
of message would we send if the law made an exception and
allowed this practice in some cases? That is why I will introduce
amendments to ensure that there is no age limit and that this
procedure cannot be performed on any female individual.
3578
The bill I introduced had a very specific purpose, namely to
protect the physical integrity of women and girls. Women's
physical integrity can be protected at any age. I think the
minister's bill does not address this aspect. The legislation should
also apply to any individual who participates in or promotes
mutilation.
(1625)
As the House knows, this cultural practice involves an individual
accompanying, encouraging or taking a child, for example, out of
the country to undergo this procedure. This is another amendment I
would like to make to the minister's bill.
I would also like to see another amendment providing that no
exceptions shall be made to allow this surgical procedure. I think
that physicians know full well what genital mutilation entails and
disagree with this practice, so I do not see why there should be
exceptions to allow surgery if the woman is healthy.
I take comfort in seeing that some of my fellow members will
support my amendments and I thank my colleague for raising these
amendments here in this House today.
[English]
Ms. Meredith: Madam Speaker, I want to tell my hon. colleague
I am pleased to support her amendments if that is what it is going to
do. It brought to my mind that maybe there should be protection for
people who go out of the country for the procedure and then return
to Canada. Maybe that is another protection we should look at. It is
similar to the issue of tourist prostitution. If somebody were to do
it, be they Canadian or landed immigrant, and they went out of the
country to have it done, then the full weight of the law would still
come to bear.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I would like the hon. member to acknowledge that it has been
indicated where an individual leaves the country for the purpose of
procuring female genital mutilation, that such person would be
subject to criminal sanction in this country. Also, where it involved
adults, this would be regarded as assault causing bodily harm. The
supreme court has indicated that a person cannot consent to bodily
harm being inflicted upon them. Therefore, the amendment the
hon. member is talking about is not necessary.
Ms. Meredith: Madam Speaker, for greater clarity I would like
the member to point out where the protection is. I do not see
anything dealing with female genital mutilation in the bill which
would protect somebody who has it done outside of the country or
somebody who has it done and is over the age of 18.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-27, introduced by the
Minister of Justice on April 18. It seems to me that the objective of
this bill is very worthwhile, in that it will amend the Criminal Code
to put an end to child prostitution, child sex tourism, criminal
harassment and female genital mutilation.
I am very sensitive to this problem as an immigrant, as a member
of Parliament and as the official opposition critic on immigration.
It is indeed among immigrant women from Africa, Asia and the
Middle East that this practice takes on serious proportions. I
vigorously condemn such criminal practices as the acts of violence
and abuse against women and children that they are. They are a
direct attack on their psychological and physical integrity.
These harmful practices inflicted on women and children violate
and deny human rights as well as fundamental freedoms.
(1630)
I look forward to this bill being adopted to finally prohibit and
prevent child sex abuse and female genital mutilation altogether.
Women and children are full-fledged persons and, as such, they
must enjoy every right and freedom enjoyed by the other members
of our society.
I am not the only one to be extremely concerned about these
issues. Several women's and children's rights groups, from Quebec
and across Canada, have been organizing to eradicate child
prostitution, child sexual tourism and female genital mutilation. It
is interesting to note that, on December 21, 1994, Quebec's human
rights commission adopted a position on the practices of female
genital mutilation, namely excision and infibulation. According to
the commission, such practices threaten the right of women to their
integrity, to equality and to non-discrimination. The commission
concluded that these practices discriminated against women.
I must commend the Bloc Quebecois member from Quebec who,
in 1995, presented Bill C-277 on genital mutilation of female
persons. I think her bill was more far-reaching and more complete
than this bill by the Minister of Justice.
Like the Bloc members who spoke before me, I think that Bill
C-27 has a limited, restricted scope. Bill C-27 could and should go
further in several ways.
As regard sex tourism, let me recall certain facts showing the
extent of the problem. In the May 1993 edition of L'Actualité,
journalist Luc Chartrand stated that between 20,000 and 30,000
young boys were prostitutes in Sri Lanka. According to him, about
3579
10 per cent of tourists are choosing this destination to practice
pedophilia.
Sri Lanka is not the only country where pedophilia is widely
practised. It is also the case in other poor countries in Asia, like
Thailand and the Philippines, and also in Latin America,
particularly in the Dominican Republic.
It is with great concern that, a few weeks ago, I watched a
Radio-Canada report on this topic. What really shocks me is that
there are Canadians who go to the Dominican Republic with the
intention of sexually abusing young children and teenagers.
A tragic consequence of sex tourism is the proliferation of AIDS,
particularly among young boys. Because of this, clients tend to
seek children who have never had sexual relations before, and who
are therefore increasingly younger.
There are also clandestine networks through which child
pornography magazines can be exchanged, and even children. Sex
tourism does create major problems, the most serious one being the
fact that these children become slaves.
Canada must put a stop to these criminal acts which violate
human rights. We must follow the example of countries such as
Germany and Norway, which have already criminalized these
unacceptable practices.
This brings me to my first reservation regarding Bill C-27 as it
pertains to sex tourism. This reservation has to do with the very
definition of the people targeted by the bill. In order to fully
eliminate sex tourism, Bill C-27 should not target only those who
use child prostitution services abroad.
(1635)
The wording of the bill should also include those who support
the sexual exploitation of children. I am referring to promoters,
organizers and travel agencies or companies organizing trips
abroad for the purposes of sex tourism involving persons under the
age of eighteen. In short, all those who directly or indirectly
encourage these criminal practices should be punished.
Second, according to clause 4.1, Bill C-27 only applies to
persons who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents. It is
important that such a bill also apply to any person living in Canada,
whether or not that person is a Canadian citizen. Therefore, this bill
would also apply to refugees, asylum seekers, everybody living in
Canada on a relatively stable basis.
With regard to genital mutilation, I would like also to give some
idea of the scope of the problem. The World Health Organization
estimates at between 85 and 115 million worldwide the number of
women and girls who have been subjected to excision. This custom
mainly involves excising the clitoris and the labia on little girls
aged between 5 and 10.
In the countries where this custom is practised, excision on little
girls is an integral part of a culture that is sometimes several
centuries old. This custom is considered a rite of passage: the little
girl then becomes a woman. However, I want to point out that,
contrary to some beliefs and claims, no religion accepts nor agrees
with female genital mutilation.
We may condemn these customs, but it is difficult to impose our
views against the practice of female genital mutilation abroad.
However, we must pass legislation to prohibit any female genital
mutilation in Canada. These customs have limits.
In this regard, I would like to quote from the declaration and the
platform for action adopted in Vienna on June 25, 1993, where the
World Conference on Human Rights, after restating that all human
rights are universal, indissociable, interdependent and intimately
related, pointed out that ``even though it is appropriate not to forget
the importance of national and regional identities and cultural and
religious historical diversities, every state, whatever its political,
economic and cultural system may be, has the duty to protect all
human rights and all basic freedoms''.
Then it points out how important it is to try to ``eliminate the
contradictions that can exist between the rights of women and the
harmful impacts of certain traditional or customary practices, of
cultural prejudices and of religious extremism''. Further on, in the
part dealing with children's rights, the conference ``urgently begs
states to repeal existing laws and regulations and to eliminate the
customs and practices that are discriminatory and harmful to
girls''.
In Canada, the right not to be subjected to genital mutilation
transcends the cultural argument. The right to physical integrity is
included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the
Canadian Charter of Human Rights and in the Quebec Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms.
(1640)
It is important for Canada to adopt legislation prohibiting female
genital mutilation, because, from 1986 to 1991, 40,000 immigrants
from countries where this practice exists have come to Canada. In
1992 only, another 3,245 immigrants from countries where genital
mutilation is tolerated or promoted came to Canada.
I think Bill C-27 is rather vague about the extraterritoriality of
the prohibition of genital mutilation. I wish we would include in
the bill a provision allowing proceedings in Canada against persons
who take a child abroad for genital mutilation. This is important if
we are to close a loophole that can be used, and is already being
used, to bypass the law and have female genital mutilation
performed.
I do not feel comfortable either with the exception provided for
in the bill concerning female genital mutilation. This exception
would allow mutilation in surgical procedures performed by a
3580
physician for medical reasons or to enable that person to have
normal reproductive functions.
First, physicians think this exception is not needed. Dr. André
Lalonde, president of the Society of Obstetricians and
Gynaecologists of Canada, said so very clearly. He stated that
female genital mutilation is not a medical procedure per se.
Second, instead of banning completely this practice, Bill C-27,
with this exception, allows it to go on for reasons of physical
health.
In the same vein, I would prefer if the bill did not specify an age
of consent for female genital mutilation. The bill before us says
that an adult person, that is an 18-year old, can give consent to
genital mutilation.
I should remind the House that female genital mutilations are
permanent. It scars young girls and women forever. Consent is
often the result of a conditioning process, so that the consent given
by a child or an adult is questionable.
The establishment of an age limit for consenting to genital
mutilation seems to me to be contrary to the objective of Bill C-27,
that is to totally eradicate female genital mutilation.
Moreover, I would rather be in favour of legislation allowing for
the prosecution of anyone directly or indirectly involved in the
practice of female genital mutilation. In my opinion, Bill C-27 is
too restrictive on this aspect because it deals only with the people
who perform the operation.
Legislation penalizing all those involved would make them both
aware of the criminal aspect of female genital mutilation and
accountable for their actions. It would also lead to the dismantling
of clandestine networks operating in this field, of which there are
many unfortunately.
Finally, I believe Bill C-27 is a step in the right direction. Bill
C-27 criminalizes child prostitution, sex tourism and women
genital mutilation.
(1645)
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
will let my hon. colleague catch his breath. He will then be able to
answer and proceed with his speech.
I see that yet another colleague of mine will be supporting my
amendments. With regard to my amendments, I want to point out
that I have consulted various stakeholders who are concerned about
genital mutilation and they agreed that this bill will no go far for
several reasons. The amendment I want to refer to deals with
genital mutilation and the concept of extraterritoriality.
Since this concept was used in the sex tourism bill, I do not see
why it could not be included in the genital mutilation bill. Any
individual who is a Canadian citizen could then be prosecuted. We
know full well that mutilation very often happens outside the
country. Under the bill introduced by the minister, these offenders
would not be prosecuted, because no new offence would be created.
The purpose of the bill I introduced was to create a new offence.
The minister's bill only defines genital mutilation as part of the
assaults stipulated in the legislation. I had hoped for a provision
listing the various aspects of genital mutilation and all the
prohibited acts, something that would apply not only to the
individual performing the mutilation but to anyone encouraging
such a practice or ensuring that an individual undergoes genital
mutilation.
I would like my hon. colleague to tell us if he thinks
extraterritoriality is a good principle that could help to reinforce
this bill.
Mr. Nunez: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate
the member for Quebec who, last year, introduced an excellent bill
concerning female genital mutilation and who then made a very
good speech. She continued in the same vein today. Indeed, this is
an extremely important bill.
On the subject of the territoriality of legislation, this is an
important principle of international law, but one for which there is
an increasing number of exceptions. There are, for example, the
perpetrators of crimes against humanity, who can be prosecuted
anywhere. It is important, and I believe that in this bill the concept
of territoriality should be applied.
People who commit infractions outside the country could be
prosecuted here, and this is precisely an essential element of this
bill. Canadians, not only Canadians citizens, but also residents,
refugees and asylum seekers, who commit crimes in another
country could be prosecuted in Canada. I believe this is the way to
get rid of this reprehensible practice. If the principle of
extraterritoriality is not applied, the bill's effect will be too limited
and it will not have much significance.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for his comments but I suggest that in a
number of areas there are other and better interpretations of the
criminal law than were presented by his remarks.
He indicated he would have preferred if the legislation had
explicitly dealt with people who are tour operators or travel agents
who offer sex tours. These provisions are already contained within
the Criminal Code of Canada. Sections 212.1(a) and (g)
specifically provide that everyone who procures, attempts to
procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with
another person, whether in or out of Canada, or procures a person
to enter or leave Canada for the purpose of prostitution is guilty of
an indictable offence.
3581
(1650)
It is clear that sex tour operators or travel agents who organize
these types of tours are guilty in Canada of a criminal offence.
Canadian nationals and all permanent residents who obtain or
attempt to obtain outside of Canada the sexual services of a person
under the age of 18 are guilty of a criminal offence, not just
Canadian citizens as was indicated by the hon. member.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Madam Speaker, it is not enough to mention citizens
and permanent residents because there are people in Canada who
are neither citizens nor permanent residents, particularly refugees
claimants. They come to Canada, file a refugee status claim and
spend one, two or three years here while the Board assesses their
claim. So, I think the bill should be amended to include that
relatively large category of persons.
Second, the hon. member told me that travel agencies are already
included in the bill, but I do not see that very clearly. If it were
possible to clarify that a little, it would be a major step forward,
particularly since it was clearly specified in the bill tabled by the
member for Quebec that travel agencies or transportation
organizations would also be guilty of those offences. According to
what the hon. member said, that is included in the minister's bill,
but I think it should be clarified and specified.
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise today obviously to speak
in favour of Bill C-27, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
At the outset I congratulate my colleague, the Minister of
Justice, for championing a bill designed to improve the Criminal
Code provisions in four key areas vital to the health and safety of
women and children both in Canada and around the world.
I speak to this bill both as Secretary of State for the Status of
Women and as a physician who has, in every one of the four aspects
of this legislation, seen firsthand the results of this type of
imbalance of power in society. The four aspects of this legislation
are child sex tourism, child prostitution in Canada, criminal
harassment and female genital mutilation.
Hon. members will recall that many of the amendments before
us were introduced in the last session as Bill C-119. Since the new
session we have added a new section relating to child sex tourism
and a further amendment relating to child prostitution in Canada.
There are four things the bill has in common. They speak to the
issue of systemic violence in society, particularly against women
and children, and the commitment of the government to removing
that violence.
Last year in Beijing at the fourth world conference there was a
great deal of support for this issue of dealing with systemic
violence, not simply by legislation but by dealing with systemic
violence at its roots.
(1655)
Systemic violence requires strong comprehensive provisions
that will deal not only with the legal components of this but also
with issues that have to do with sensitizing the population, with
prevention, with education, with treating the person who is
harassed or violated and with dealing with the rehabilitation of the
violator or the harassor. These things are very important if we are
to put an end to this kind of violence in society. While this is an
important component of a comprehensive strategy, it is not the only
component.
As well, many of these issues of violence stem from roots that
have to do with cultural and religious backgrounds, with social
issues which make violence a traditional imbalance of power in our
society. Those in society who have very little support, who have
very little voice to speak for themselves, who have very little
autonomy and independence are the ones who are traditionally the
victims of violence. We can see in all four of these issues they tend
to deal with women and children who are still among the people in
society who cannot speak for themselves or who cannot defend
themselves.
In Beijing it was clearly stated religion is not an excuse for
mutilation and for violence.
I urge everyone in the House to support the bill. Going abroad to
have sex with children is exploitation at its worst, at its most
shameful. It means we will not do in this country certain things we
feel ashamed of, and we go to another country where we can be
hidden by anonymity to exploit and abuse other people's children.
The Criminal Code already addresses certain aspects of sex
tourism. Section 212 could, now that we have seen it in its full
entirety as an amendment, affect tour operators, travel agents and
agencies offering sex tours. Subsection 1(a) deals with specifically
providing or attempting to procure whether in or out of Canada,
and that obviously refers to those who would set up tours or
agencies which would allow people to go on this kind of venture.
Subsection 1(g) deals with entering or leaving Canada for the
purpose of prostitution. This is an indictable offence which will be
given not less than ten years.
Canadians are seen as role models to the world. For us as a
country to allow Canadians to go across the world to exploit and
violate children is absolutely unacceptable. The bill sends a clear
signal that this behaviour is unacceptable at home and it is
unacceptable abroad, especially with the extraterritorial provisions
in the bill.
3582
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Belgium, France,
Germany, Australia, New Zealand and the United States have
already adopted legislation which permits prosecution of nationals
for sexual activities with children. A world congress against sexual
exploitation of children will be held in Stockholm, Sweden on
August 27 of this year. Canada will send government
representatives. The congress is expected to develop a declaration
and a plan of action.
Clearly there is an international environment which upholds the
principles we in Canada have included in the amendments to this
bill.
Bill C-27 further amends section 7 of the Criminal Code
allowing proceedings in Canada against Canadian citizens who
engage in activities associated with child prostitution when they
are outside the country. This is an issue of morality. It is an issue of
human rights.
The second component of the amendments deals with changing
these things at home. As my mother used to say, charity begins at
home. It would be hypocrisy for us to make provisions which
would create a problem for people who go abroad and not deal with
the people at home who continue to exploit children.
These amendments will make the pimping of a child under 18 an
aggravated offence and will look at those who procure children
under the age of 18 and those who use violence. When we talk
about systemic violence we are talking about an imbalance of
power. The perpetrators will use that power and violence to make
those children under 18 continue to prostitute themselves.
(1700 )
The amendment will deal with a very important component in
the imbalance of power, where fear and anxiety play a major part.
Many people who have been exploited in this kind of system are
afraid to speak against their abuser or their exploiter. In this case, it
will be made easier for children to testify behind a screen so that
they do not have to be afraid of what might occur after they have
testified.
The third component of the amendment makes it illegal to cause
someone to fear for their safety or the safety of someone unknown
to them by following them, by threatening them, by
communicating threats to them either at home or at work. This
amendment is important because it will ensure that murder
committed while stalking will now be seen to be first degree
murder whether or not it can be proven that it was planned and
deliberate.
The penalty for first degree murder is 25 years with no parole.
This is really important because in the past the argument was
always made that the person did not intend to go ahead and do this,
that it happened by mistake and was a crime of passion. Stalking
clearly says that a person is seeking to threaten and harm someone.
Now that person should be made responsible.
Finally, the fourth component of this bill deals with female
genital mutilation. This is a very complex and sensitive issue
because it deals with cultural and religious beliefs. However, it has
become an international cause celebre. The World Health
Organization, UNICEF, United Nations and Beijing discussed this
issue and decided that it was absolutely unacceptable to use
religion or culture as a reason to inflict violence on anyone.
As a physician, I can say that female genital mutilation is not
violence against children or against women solely. It also carries
with it the health problem of chronic pain, chronic pelvic
inflammatory disease, chronic disease that a woman has to live
with for the rest of her life making her an invalid in many
instances. This is violence and abusive power at its worst because
religion is used to say that someone must succumb to this kind of
violence.
Paragraph 232 of the platform for action at Beijing requires
governments to prohibit female genital mutilation wherever it
exists and gives vigorous support to efforts among non-government
and community organizations and religious institutions to
eliminate such practices.
While I said earlier that we require comprehensive plans and
strategies to deal with the issue, legislation is one of them.
Education, sensitivity training and awareness must be a
component. Status of Women Canada, the Solicitor General and
Health Canada have been working with communities and
grassroots organizations to deal with this issue.
We have found that communities which have been subjected to
some of these violent episodes such as female genital mutilation, it
is very difficult for people to speak out. It is very difficult for them
to speak against what is a religious practice, especially when they
live in these communities.
Dealing with these issues on the ground and going out into the
communities is very important. We need to talk about systemic
violence, not only in terms of legislation but in terms of setting
clear, comprehensive, holistic strategies where we work across
departments, where we work across governmental levels and where
we work within the community and with NGOs to ensure that we
deal with these issues fully.
At this time, the Criminal Code prohibits female genital
mutilation in Canada. It also prohibits having a child removed from
Canada to have female genital mutilation performed. The Criminal
Code states that it is illegal. One cannot remove a person from the
country in order to perform an illegal act.
This amendment clarifies this. It also adds the very strong
educational and sensitivity component we were talking about
earlier by defining female genital mutilation as aggravated assault.
3583
Maiming and wounding a person is not a cultural practice. Anyone
under 18 cannot consent or have any person consent to having this
terrible act done on them.
Underlying all these four amendments to the Criminal Code is
something very important. It speaks to removing that imbalance of
power that is systemic in our society today. It is a way of warning
abusers in positions of authority or trust who abuse through
religion or parenting. In many instances, children as young as five
years of age have been subjected to child sex tourism in some
countries of the world. This is not sex tourism. It is pedophilia.
(1705)
The exploitation and abuse of those who are at the lowest rung of
the ladder, women and children, must be stopped. I see this bill as
being a step in dealing with the issue.
I urge everyone in the House to vote for the bill. Let us continue
to work on other ways to bring about, not only legislation, but
comprehensive strategies so that this country can be a safe place for
women and their children and eventually the world will no longer
exploit them.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the hon. member's speech. She pointed out that
under this bill those who commit murder who have first stalked
their victim, if convicted, can be sentenced to first degree murder
even though it is not required to prove intent and that the individual
would have to serve 25 years.
In view of what the hon. member has said, would she be willing
to support the elimination of section 745 of the Criminal Code
which would allow that murderer to apply for parole eligibility
after serving just 15 years?
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the hon. member is
addressing. I cannot support the complete elimination of this
section of the Criminal Code. We have to look at how to deal with
the issue in a different way. We cannot just look at how the law
deals with specific individuals.
The law must be broad in its range. Justice must be meted out in
accordance with the crime. Has the person been rehabilitated?
Serial murderers cannot be lumped in with people who may have
committed a single murder. The circumstances of the murder must
be looked at. The families of victims must be consulted as well as
the people in the communities who were there at the time of the
murder. It must be looked at in a more comprehensive way rather
than a knee-jerk reaction to something which could be meaningful.
If a decision is made that is going to cut a deep swath in society, we
may be doing more harm than good.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Secretary of State for the Status of Women says that Bill C-27 is a
step forward, and I think it is true. I would like to ask her if she
agrees with the amendments we want to make to improve the bill.
When she says that mutilation is an illegal act, she is right, but
the communities who practise genital mutilation do not intend to
commit an illegal act. For them, it is just a cultural and not a
religious practice. To improve the bill, I would like certain
amendments to be made.
Does the minister, who is also responsible for the status of
women, agree with the age limit which means that we would
tolerate that a woman over eighteen years of age cannot defend the
physical integrity of her body? I think if we want to send a clear
message to cultural communities, we must not establish an age
limit. This bill wants to send a clear message, but the government
is diluting the bill that I brought forward previously.
After the minister made his intentions known on this bill and
particularly on genital mutilation, I consulted a few organizations
that agree with these amendments and that feel this bill does not go
far enough. Anyway, we will hear the various groups concerned
with this problem in committee.
(1710)
I ask the Secretary of State if she would support the inclusion in
the bill of people who encourage or assist a person who performs
this type of procedure. For the minister, the only person concerned
is the one who performs the procedure.
We know that it is a cultural custom and that it is the community
which allows a seven or eight-year-old girl to be subjected to
genital mutilation, namely the excision of the clitoris. It is
atrocious. If we want to send a clear message, there has to be no
exceptions, not even for physicians allowing such a medical
procedure for health reasons. Doctors know what mutilations are
all about.
Also, I would like the Secretary of State to explain to us why an
exception was made for physicians when the society of
obstetricians does not agree. According to the society, physicians
know full well what constitutes an act of mutilation and there is no
need to make an exception in their case since it could lead to
abuses. I would like the Secretary of State to answer these three
questions.
[English]
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks a very interesting
question. Not being a lawyer, I can say it is often very difficult to
interpret laws. However, in many instances when a law is made or
3584
it is generic enough that it can affect people who in the course of
their duties are doing something that is in fact for the health of
someone but could be interpreted as otherwise they need to have
some sort of protection.
It may very well be that when we speak of doing any sort of
operation on a woman or on a child for their health there are many
different operations that can be done. For example, in instances
where a child or an adult whose external sexual organs do not
function properly it may be necessary to do certain operations that
would enable them to function properly. This is very different from
what female genital mutilation is all about. That is an operation
which prevents them from functioning properly.
There is a fine line between things we may need to do to enhance
a person's health, which is not necessarily mutilation. There are a
lot of operations in medicine in which one has to open up certain
areas so that the woman can menstruate properly. One wants to be
sure that a physician doing some of those operations for the health
of the patient does not have to be seen to be committing female
genital mutilation. I believe this would have to be done on a case by
case basis where one would clearly define what the person is doing.
I thank the hon. member very much for that extremely important
question.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to follow up what the hon. member across the way touched on.
When she indicated that anyone convicted of murder as a result of
stalking would serve 25 years imprisonment, she should clarify
that. She knows that under section 745 of the Criminal Code that
individual would have the advantage of early parole after serving
just 15 years.
I do not think that should be side stepped, it is a fact. I do not
think she was absolutely frank and forthright in her suggestion that
anyone convicted of murder for stalking would have to serve 25
years. They, like all murderers in this country under today's law,
would have the advantage of section 745 and would be able to
expend taxpayer dollars in an attempt to lower the parole
ineligibility after serving just 15 years.
Nevertheless, I rise today in support of the government's bill,
C-27. In 1993, 52 Reform members came to Ottawa with a
commitment to the Canadian people to reform Parliament.
Included in those reforms was the promise to be supportive
whenever possible of government legislation. We promised not to
oppose government legislation simply for the sake of opposition or
to gain political points.
If a bill enhances public safety we will support it. We therefore
support the government's initiative in Bill C-27. Bill C-27 is a
series of amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with child
prostitution, child sex tourism, criminal harassment and female
genital mutilation. It will help reduce violence against women and
children. Therefore we support it.
(1715)
The bill is not the final answer. A number of legislative changes
must be implemented if we are to continue to eradicate domestic
violence and child abuse. Attention must be focused on crime
prevention, starting with the identification of the cause of domestic
violence.
Clause 5 of Bill C-27 amends Criminal Code section 268,
aggravated assault. Under Bill C-27 infibulation in whole or in part
to the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a young person under
the age of 18 will be considered aggravated assault punishable by a
term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years. The thought that
there are adults in the country who are willing to subject their
children to that kind of treatment is the most abhorrent aspect of
the whole issue.
Therefore we will push for an amendment under this clause of
Bill C-27 to completely eliminate this barbaric and inhuman
practice to protect all women in the country.
In view of the concern expressed in 1992 by the Ontario College
of Physicians and Surgeons this Criminal Code amendment is
necessary. The Ontario college reported that there had been a rise in
the number of requests for infibulations in the country. Infibulation
is the cutting off of a young girl's genital parts, including the
clitoris, and the subsequent sewing together of the opening leaving
room for only urination and menstruation.
Just thinking about it, just reading about it, just speaking about it
fills me with a degree of repulsion that makes me wonder why the
government has waited as long as it has. As my colleague from
Surrey-White Rock mentioned, we are indebted to the member
for Quebec who I think spurred the government in this direction
with her private member's bill. I congratulate her.
Canada has been cited by the World Health Organization as
being one of forty countries involved in the practice of what has
become known as female circumcision, correctly referred to as
female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation causes a
number of short and long term problems including excruciating
pain; hemorrhaging; occasional death; exceptionally high rates of
infections to the urinary tract, bladder, reproductive organs and
bowel; menstrual and pregnancy problems; anemia; and
disfiguring cysts that not only reduce or eliminate sexual pleasure
but often result in extreme pain during intercourse and can even
prohibit it.
Suffice to say, the Canadian medical community says that
female genital mutilation has absolutely no benefits but is
completely unnecessary and extremely harmful.
An assistant in my office watched a documentary on female
genital mutilation. As the mother of a five-year old girl she says
she cannot erase the horrifying impression the film left upon her.
The documentary was about the cultural practice of female mutila-
3585
tion. In the film a four-year old girl sat on what appeared to be a
stool upon a dirt floor while an elderly woman from the community
using a crude instrument cut off her clitoris. No anesthetic was
used. No freezing was used. As the girl screamed in horror and
pain, the woman proceeded without any sign of anguish on the part
of the mother, who not only witnessed the barbaric mutilation of
her daughter but was part of it. The mother showing no sign of
emotion restrained her daughter. When the procedure was complete
the girl laid on a dirty mat, sobbing, with her feet tied together and
with her hands bound.
I relay this horrible story to the House because we as a nation
must signal to the world that the practice of mutilating young girls
is absolutely deplorable and therefore must be outlawed
everywhere.
In Somalia and other countries the practice meets cultural
demands or cultural standards or preserves a sense of identity to
their community, or it is done to preserve virginity and family
honour. It is time the UN stepped in and protected children
worldwide from being assaulted and abused in the name of
culturally acceptable practices. The UN has been asked to put a
stop to child labour. Therefore it is absolutely imperative that the
UN move to stop this most savage abuse of children.
(1720)
I urge the Government of Canada to take the lead on the issue by
initiating talk with those countries that would be supportive of UN
action in this regard. We must take every measure possible to
protect children in this country and throughout the world.
I therefore fully support the section of Bill C-27 which makes it
an offence for a Canadian citizen to obtain paid sexual services of
children abroad or to engage in an activity associated with child
prostitution when they are out of the country.
The most alarming part of the issue is the fact that we have
adults in this country who will travel to other countries to have
sexual relations with children. It is alarming for me to realize there
are adults from other countries who will come to Canada and take
advantage of and abuse children from dysfunctional families who
are prostituting themselves. There is a lot of work for us to do
within our own country as well as internationally.
I would be remiss, however, if I did not question the
effectiveness of this Canadian measure in eliminating child
prostitution throughout the world. While it may bring Canadian
citizens to justice, it will not stop citizens from other countries
from engaging in sexual relations with children. Again I believe the
only way to eradicate this form of sexual abuse against children
would be through UN action and action of other international
bodies.
I also support the portion of Bill C-27 which imposes a
mandatory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment for
persons found guilty of profiting from juvenile prostitution. I have
some concerns regarding the effectiveness of imposing only a
five-year minimum sentence. Pimping is a serious offence and as
such should carry a severe penalty. I will therefore be seeking the
advice of the witnesses appearing before the standing committee
regarding possible amendments to this portion of Bill C-27.
Under subsection 212(4) of the Criminal Code obtaining the
sexual service of a person under the age of 18 years is an indictable
offence liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Bill C-27 alters this section of the code by adding that it is an
offence to obtain sexual service of persons believed to be under the
age of 18 years. I support this change.
I would, however, recommend an additional change to make the
procurement of sexual service of persons under the age of 18 years
liable to a minimum of five years. Let us cut off the demand. If the
Johns using these young children, abusing both girls and boys,
knew they faced a serious term of imprisonment, they might think
twice before they express their lust upon the children of our
country.
Buying sex from children is just as bad as selling it. The sex
trade in this country is a booming industry in which children appear
to be a hot commodity. Child sex consumers demand young flesh.
Pimps are parasites, some of them violent, who happily supply the
demand. The demand for child prostitutes will not go away as long
as child sex consumers sleep easily at night knowing their risk for
arrest is minimal and if caught the penalty is only a maximum of
five years.
According to the B.C. attorney general's office only eight B.C.
men have been charged for buying sex from a juvenile since 1988.
By contrast, 215 pimping charges were laid between 1988 and
1993. Sexually exploited children deserve protection in the
Criminal Code with all other children who are victims of sexual
predators.
Whether they are sexually abused on the street instead of in their
homes or schools, the penalty ought to be the same. All children,
especially those who are products of abusive and dysfunctional
families which have forced them to retreat to the streets where they
are further abused, deserve equal protection under the law.
If we ever hope to reduce and eventually eliminate juvenile
prostitution, we must address the reasons children are turning to the
streets where they are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Despite
the justice minister's admission in the fall of 1995 that he had no
money for crime prevention, we must implement preventive crime
measures, particularly in relation to juvenile prostitution and in
relation to young offenders.
(1725)
As we go about the country reviewing the Young Offenders Act,
the 12-year review, we should talk to groups and organizations
doing early identification and preventive work to keep young
3586
children out of the criminal justice system, prostitution and the
drug trade. There are ways and means. We must spend more of the
$10 billion that we spend at the back end of the system in
preventive programs. They are there and they need our help. We
can keep these young kids off the streets, out of prostitution, out of
drugs and out of the criminal justice system.
Those children who are turning to the streets and a life of crime
must be given an alternative safe haven where they can have some
hope for and assistance in having a positive and productive future.
Finally I touch briefly upon the portion of Bill C-27 regarding
harassment. We are all aware of the growing problem of domestic
violence in the country and the need for the section on criminal
harassment outlined in the bill. We need more legislation and more
preventive measures in relation to domestic violence in the
country, including more power for the police to investigate and
prosecute people who abuse their spouses.
If the justice minister thinks Bill C-27 and his gun registration
legislation are the only measures needed to combat domestic
violence, I suggest he is wrong. Firearms registration will not
eliminate or decrease this form of violence. This fact was evident
in the recent and horrible shooting death of 10 members of a
Vernon, B.C., family by an estranged and distraught spouse.
Now only did the police in that case not follow a 1993
government policy to investigate cases of domestic violence,
including those cases where there is no co-operation by the victim,
they issued a gun permit to a person who had allegations of
violence and abuse launched against him.
I quote from an April 10, 1996 Globe and Mail article which
states:
This mass killing of 10 people last week in Vernon, B.C., has revealed fatal
flaws and everyday limitations to Canada's much vaunted gun control laws.
The two handguns used-in the killings were acquired legally because there
weren't enough police officers, enough public funding and enough political
pressure to pursue tell-tale doubts that he might have been dangerous.
In closing I reiterate my opening statement. We support Bill
C-27, but we hope to introduce amendments that will enhance its
effectiveness in eliminating juvenile prostitution, domestic
violence and female genital mutilation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to start by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for
Québec, for her courage and tenacity. She has risen regularly in the
House to demand new legislation on the practice of genital
mutilation. She has tenaciously raised several questions with the
minister regarding these abusive practices.
I therefore take pleasure in speaking to this bill for the second
time, since I did so already when my colleague tabled Bill C-248. I
am pleased that my colleague's voice has been heard by the
Minister of Justice, leading us to today's debate on Bill C-27.
The purpose of this bill is to modify the Criminal Code with
respect to violence toward women and children. It addresses a
number of aspects, procurement, criminal harassment, and the
protection of child witnesses, themes which have been addressed in
greater depth by some of my other colleagues.
For my part, I shall be concentrating on two aspects of particular
importance to me, sex tourism and genital mutilation.
In the first case, sex tourism, Bill C-27 modifies the current
wording in order to make it easier to arrest and prosecute the
customers of child prostitutes in Canada and elsewhere. This bill
will remedy an unacceptable situation, one which has often gone
unpunished in the past.
(1730)
The aim of this bill is also to introduce the principle of
extraterritoriality, which will allow Canada to prosecute an
individual, even though the act may take place in another country.
Unlike the Helms-Burton trade legislation in the United States,
which we oppose, the extraterritorial nature of legislation on sexual
tourism is intended to protect human rights, basic rights that justify
setting aside normal legislative principles.
The text of Bill C-27 as it stands is, however, incomplete, since it
does not provide for the prosecution of the promoters of travel
abroad for the purposes of sexual tourism and of those organizing,
providing transportation and having any involvement with such
trips. It would be entirely appropriate to include such provisions so
the bill would be as complete as possible and so the victims of
juvenile prosecution may be afforded the best protection possible.
The argument that other provisions in the Criminal Code could
make such prosecution possible does not hold. Where human rights
are concerned, we cannot run the risk of error or misinterpretation.
Express provisions should therefore be added to cover these
categories of offender so it would be clear that they could be
prosecuted just like those committing the act under the terms of the
law.
In this regard, the wording of Bill C-246 that my colleague for
Quebec introduced earlier this session is entirely adequate since, in
addition to forbidding juvenile prostitution, it provides that those
who take or transport people to a common bawdy-house where
people under 18 years of age can be found are guilty.
The other point which makes me think of Bill C-27 as
incomplete is the fact that it does not apply to people who are
neither Canadian citizens nor landed immigrants. In fact, clause 1
of the bill states that someone can be prosecuted if this person is a
3587
Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of the
Immigration Act. But there are other categories of people that
could be included, that is refugees or asylum seekers, for instance.
I wish to stop my comments here concerning sexual tourism,
because I want to spend a little more time commenting female
genital mutilation. As the critic for health, it is a clause that is of
particular concern to me, considering my responsibilities.
I want it to be clear, however, that it is unacceptable for us to still
be dealing in 1996 with problems as serious as sexual tourism.
Abusers still go abroad to satisfy their sexual needs with children.
We are told that these children are younger and younger,
considering the HIV contamination that is rampant in developing
or poor countries, where numerous vacationers travel every year.
That is inadmissible. Last week, on Radio-Canada, we saw
young girls of 10, 11 or 12 years of age and people who were asking
sexual services from these children declaring freely that it is
nothing serious since their culture allows that behaviour.
This is inadmissible. It is horrendous and it is time that someone
took the matter in hand and that a clear and complete bill was
passed. It is time that these practices, which deny children their
rights, be prohibited and criminalized for once and for all. It is as if
our children were not persons. We should not sexually abuse
children; even animals do not do that.
(1735)
This is inadmissible. I hope we will pass a significant bill to put
an end to these practices. It cannot be true that a country like
Canada, which advocates the protection of human rights, and I
think that includes child rights, would leave the door open to those
people who abuse children.
I would like to turn to the clause of Bill C-27 concerning
excision and female genital mutilation. I think that this clause is a
step in the right direction. But even here, there is room for
improvement.
I have been an active member of women's groups for nearly 30
years. Right from the first time I met with women's groups, the
first subject they brought up was their concern about genital
mutilation. Women's groups across the world have long been
condemning practices of this kind.
It is fortunate that we before us a bill, but it should not, as for
child sex tourism, barely touch the problem, deal with prevention
or information, but it must give clear warning that this practice is a
crime, that any such violation of women's genitals constitutes a
mutilation. Everybody who comes to this country, everybody who
lives in this country, must know that, here, in Canada, female
genital mutilation is a crime, a violation of the Criminal Code, just
like impaired driving.
I would like to address this issue in more detail so as to make the
people listening to us very much aware of this type of practice. It is
not a question of five or six cases per year per country. Studies
published in 1993-1994 show that between 85 and 114 million
women alive today are the victims of genital mutilation.
According to certain recent statistics, their number increases by
2 million every year in some 40 countries in Africa, Asia, the
Middle East and elsewhere. These practices are performed on
young girls aged between 4 and 10 as an average. This is appalling.
Although impressive, these statistics say nothing of the trauma
endured by these girls, most of them very young. They say nothing
of the pain during and after these mutilations, nor the health
problems several will be plagued with for the rest of their lives.
Often performed under dubious conditions by people without
any medical knowledge, mutilations may cause many health
conditions. I will only name a few: haemorrhaging, incontinence,
abscess, infection, trauma, state of chock, and infertility among
others.
To perform these procedures, poorly sterilized instruments are
used, sometimes a simple kitchen knife. According to a document
issued by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women,
sugar, eggs, thorns and palm ribs are also used. These irreversible
procedures are extremely painful and often performed without
anaesthesia, and they often result in sexual and psychological
trauma and complications for the victim. I do not believe it
necessary to describe this practice to understand what we are
dealing with.
(1740)
It is clear this practice is unacceptable and must absolutely not
be tolerated. Furthermore, we must make sure that those guilty of
such an act are severely punished.
The justice minister decided not to create a specific offense for
excision. His decision is based on two arguments: first, those who
practice excision can be prosecuted under existing provisions. It is
very hard to do so in a country such as ours because, when people
arrive here, that practice is part of their culture and they will not
denounce each other.
So, how can we prosecute those guilty of excision? We must
tell all the people who come to Canada that here, it is a criminal
act and that we will not tolerate it. That is why I said earlier that
we should not say it is already in the Criminal Code. That is not
enough. We have made several requests along that line before. It
was part of the bill presented by my colleague, the member for
Quebec. It does not work.
3588
Several doctors across Canada have said that they often get
phone calls or visits by people who ask them to perform an
excision. Their code of ethics keeps them from denouncing those
people to the RCMP. We saw recently the case of a young girl,
about four years old, whose mother had gone shopping and whose
grandmother decided to perform that mutilation on the child. Do
you think the mother, deeply upset by what the grandmother had
done, would have reported her to the RCMP and ask that she be
imprisoned? That is the type of situation we are talking about.
People for whom excision is a cultural practice must know, when
they come to our country, that it is a criminal act here and that
if ever there are accusations against them, they will go to prison.
Second, the justice minister decided to focus on education and
prevention. In my opinion, this is not reason enough to justify not
creating a separate offence. As I said earlier, I am all for prevention
and information. This should be done, but it is just not enough. In
the words of Machiavelli, virtue alone has no effect unless it is
reinforced by a degree of deterrence. Hence the need to include in
the Criminal Code a provision dealing specifically with female
genital mutilation, so that people will see that this particular
practice is illegal in our country.
Similarly, in light of the fact that the operation on Canadian
nationals is often carried out abroad, the minister should give the
provision on female genital mutilation extraterritorial effect, as he
did for child sex tourism. It would then be possible to prosecute in
Canada persons who take a child abroad or arrange her transport for
the operation to be carried out. This extraterritorial effect would
prevent these persons from continuing to circumvent the law and
more efficiently protect children, which is the stated purpose of the
act.
Third, I would like to dispute the exception made for so-called
necessary surgical procedures, as the medical profession does not
recognize female genital mutilation as a medical act. There is
therefore no need to provide for such procedures in a piece of
legislation.
There is also a provision in Bill C-27 about an adult consenting
to a form of genital mutilation.
(1745)
I reject this possibility with great vigour as it defeats the
purpose, which is eradicating female genital mutilation.
In the name of what principle can we state in an enactment that a
person can consent to mutilation? How do we expect to eradicate
an age-old cultural practice which is widespread in certain cultures
by providing for consent? A 22 or 23-year old immigrant may then
request to be mutilated because, in her family and culture, she has
so been indoctrinated. This is an unacceptable practice and it is
imperative that it be prohibited here, in Canada; whatever the
reason, this practice is reprehensible.
Prevention, yes, but we must first pass specific legislation to that
effect, like Bill C-235, which would make the practice of female
genital mutilation illegal. After all, why close the barn door after
the horse has left?
In conclusion, education and prevention are all fine and good,
but they are not enough. We must monitor the situation, find and
denounce the culprits and, above all, really punish them.
We must act quickly, because the existing provisions do not
prevent this practice. There are more and more serious concerns
about the effectiveness of a simple policy of prevention through
education. The only avenue remaining is for legislators to enact an
extraterritorial law that applies to the whole population and
criminalizes practices such as excision, sex tourism, harassment
and other forms of abuse.
Bill C-27 may represent a step in the right direction, but there are
still many improvements to be made to correct this situation in a
really effective way once and for all.
France, Great Britain and Sweden have already done so. Norway
and several American states have also tightened their laws in this
regard. The time has come for us to take concrete action in this
matter. It must be made clear to everyone that sexual violence
against women and children is unacceptable and will not be
tolerated in any way, shape or form. Everyone must know that these
are criminal acts and that those who commit them, whether here or
elsewhere in the world, cannot escape justice and will have to
answer for their actions before the law.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for her comments. However, a number of
things are, with respect, in error.
It was suggested it would not be illegal to conduct female genital
mutilation on someone over the age of 18. That is not the case. It is
illegal. The supreme court has made it very clear one cannot
consent to aggravated assault, which female genital mutilation is,
and therefore it is illegal.
It was also suggested tour operators or those who organize sex
tours are not subject to the law. As I indicated before, the Criminal
Code already contains provisions which specifically make it clear
that travel agents or tour operators offering sex tours are guilty of a
criminal offence in Canada.
3589
(1750)
It was also suggested that people who travel outside the country
to have female genital mutilation performed would not be subject
to the law. This is also an error in that anybody who leaves the
country for the purpose of committing a criminal offence, which
female genital mutilation is, is guilty of an offence.
I wanted to clarify some misconceptions put forward but I thank
hon. members for their general support of the legislation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments. I say to the member: why make an exception? We are
here to defend the integrity of all women and all children. Why
come up with an exception? If we agree that female genital
mutilation is illegal, if we prohibit it here and if it is not practised
here in this country, why would we make an exception and put an
age limit whereby a woman over eighteen years of age would have
the right to have that surgical procedure done to her?
As I said, and I may not have made it clear enough, there are
certain cultures which resort to what we call brainwashing. Women
are told: ``You will not find a husband if you do not go along with
this practice''. Women who want to marry see this as cultural
information and think the practice is an acceptable one. So, they
will ask that it be performed on them.
We say that here in Canada we do not want this to be done to
anyone, whether the person is 18, 5 or 40 years old. The bill
introduced by my colleague sought, as she pointed out, to ensure
that this practice would not be tolerated in Canada, regardless of
age.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to support the inconsistency my hon. friend pointed out.
If the existing law is there to protect adult women now, why does
that law not now protect those under the age of 18 as well? If the
law is there in sufficient form to protect those over 18, why is it not
there to protect those under 18?
I see an inconsistency. To clarify it and leave no doubt, I am sure
we will be bringing amendments in to do that very thing. For
greater clarification to everyone concerned in this issue, I would
like to see that part of the bill changed so that it does not seem to
exclude anyone over the age of 18.
This legislation should state that clearly and unequivocally. I
support the member in her concern.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Reform Party member for
his support. Obviously, if he moves this type of amendment to Bill
C-27, the Bloc Quebecois will support it.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
committee.)
* * *
(1755)
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-27, an act
respecting the oceans of Canada, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There are 92 motions in
amendments standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of
Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada.
Motions Nos. 6 and 10 are the same as amendments presented
and negatived in committee. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing
Order 76(1)(5), they have not been selected.
The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows.
Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 1 to 4.
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 5, 22, 38, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52,
57 to 64, 72, 74, 75, 89, 90, 91.
[Translation]
Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 31.
[English]
Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 8, 9, 14, 17 to 21, 23, 32, 33, 34, 35.
[Translation]
Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 24 to 27, 39 and 66.
[English]
Group No. 7, Motions Nos. 28, 29, 30.
Group No. 8, Motions Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53, 56,
73.
[Translation]
Group No. 9, Motions Nos. 54, 55, 69, 71 and 92.
[English]
Group No. 10, Motion No. 65.
Group No. 11, Motions Nos. 67, 68, 70.
3590
[Translation]
Group No. 12, Motions Nos. 76, 78, 80, 82 and 88.
[English]
Group No. 13, Motions Nos. 77, 79, 81, 83 to 87.
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the House.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent
that all motions at report stage of Bill C-26 be deemed to have been
moved, seconded and read to the House by the Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will go now to debate on
Group No. 2.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-26, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 31, on
page 1, with the following:
``WHEREAS Canada recognizes that the three oceans, the Arctic, the Pacific
and the Atlantic, are the common heritage of all Canadians;
WHEREAS Parliament wishes to reaffirm Canada's role as a world leader in
oceans and marine resource management;
WHEREAS Parliament wishes to affirm in Canadian domestic law Canada's
sovereign rights, jurisdiction and responsibilities in the exclusive economic
zone of Canada;
WHEREAS Canada promotes the understanding of oceans, ocean processes,
marine resources and marine ecosystems to foster the sustainable development
of the oceans and their resources;
WHEREAS Canada holds that conservation, based on an ecosystem approach,
is of fundamental importance to maintaining biological diversity and
productivity in the marine environment;
WHEREAS Canada promotes the wide application of the precautionary
approach to the conservation, management and exploitation of marine
resources in order to protect these resources and preserve the marine
environment;
WHEREAS Canada recognizes that the oceans and their resources offer
significant opportunities for economic diversification and the generation of
wealth for the benefit of all Canadians, and in particular for coastal
communities;
WHEREAS Canada promotes the integrated management of oceans and marine
resources;
AND WHEREAS the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in collaboration with
other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with
provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal
organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including
those bodies established under land claims agreements, is encouraging the
development and''.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-26, in the Preamble, be amended by adding after line 12, on page
1, the following:
``WHEREAS the provinces of Canada also exercise legislative jurisdiction
with respect to oceans and their resources;''.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-26, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 15, on page 1,
with the following:
``sources in concert with the provinces, taking into account the areas of
jurisdiction of each level of government;''.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-26, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 28, on page 1,
with the following:
``and Oceans, in collaboration with provincial governments, with interested''.
[
Translation]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you
for giving me the opportunity to speak today in support of the
changes the government wishes to make to the preamble of the
Oceans Act. It is no coincidence if Canada's motto is ``a mari usque
ad mare'', from sea to sea. There is no country in this world more
influenced by the sea than Canada.
(1800)
Canada is, by definition, a maritime country. We are surrounded
by three oceans, the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic Oceans.
Most of our southern boundary is made up of a true inland sea, the
Great Lakes. Throughout the years, the exuberance of seafaring life
along the coasts has helped to define Canadian culture and identity,
due in part to the coastal communities of the First Nations, the
European whalers and fishermen unafraid to sail the high seas to
come and harvest our marine resources, and the first settlers who
came from the old world to start a new life along the coast of this
new found world that came to be known as Newfoundland.
The large marine ecosystems along our coasts are varied,
productive and precious. We have the responsibility at the national
as well as the international levels to protect our marine heritage
both for ourselves and for the future generations.
In its motion to amend Bill C-26, the Oceans Act, the
government proposes to add four new statements in the preamble,
which have been discussed and approved by the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
3591
In trying to amend the preamble, the government wants to
ensure that the wishes of the many witnesses the standing
committee heard are taken into consideration in this legislation.
The government is going about this in several ways.
[English]
The first statement is a recognition of the distinct qualities of the
three oceans of Canada and a recognition that these oceans are the
common heritage of all Canadians. This sentiment was expressed
eloquently by a number of witnesses representing fishing
organizations as well as by the aboriginal authorities who were also
witnesses at the standing committee.
The second statement the government proposes to add as
statement No. 5 to the preamble holds that conservation based on
an ecosystem is of fundamental importance to maintaining
biological diversity and productivity in the marine environment.
This principle is the basis of a new oceans management strategy to
be developed following enactment of the legislation. Amending the
preamble in this manner responds to the many representations of
witnesses before the standing committee and is consistent with the
government's approach to conservation.
The third statement the government proposed to add would fall
as the sixth statement of the current preamble. This amendment
would emphasize that Canada promotes the application of the
proportionary approach to conservation management and
exploitation of marine resources to protect those marine resources
and to preserve the marine environment. That is to say, as a nation
we would rather err on the side of caution than wait until harsh
consequences of dithering idly confront us before taking action to
preserve our cherished and fragile marine resources.
Canada strongly advocated the inclusion of the proportionary
approach in the convention on straddling stocks and highly
migratory species. It is only natural to include this principle in our
domestic legislation.
The final amendment to the preamble proposed by the
government addresses comments made by ocean industries and
regards the opportunities offered by our oceans. It would be the
seventh statement of the preamble. It reflects that Canada
recognizes the oceans and their resources offer significant
opportunities for economic diversification and the generation of
wealth to the benefit of all Canadians, in particular coastal
communities.
All these amendments draw into the body of the preamble
concepts that Canadians expressed from the legislation. It is
co-operative legislation that will make it possible for Canadians to
work together to preserve our ocean resources.
The motions brought forward by the opposition suggest further
amendments, specifically to provide provincial jurisdiction over
the management of oceans and marine resources. With respect, this
is an attempt to alter the authority granted the provinces under the
Constitution. There is no need constitutionally to reiterate the
federal government's commitment to a collaborative approach to
oceans management. This is already contained in the preamble
which highlights the role of the provinces and other stakeholders.
The particular statement of the preamble to which I am referring
states that in exercising the powers and performing the duties and
functions assigned to the minister by the act, the minister shall
co-operate with other ministers, boards and agencies of the
Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial
governments and with affected aboriginal organizations. The
provinces are specifically mentioned again in clause 33(2), a clause
dealing with consultation.
Does this sound like an exclusionary act? Does this sound like an
act that wants to take away the rights and privileges of provinces?
Of course it does not. It is not an act that attempts to do this. The
government would not be here promoting Bill C-26 if it were such
an act.
(1805)
The act does not attempt to make any changes to the present
constitutional framework or to the distribution of powers between
the federal government and the provinces. How could it by way of
ordinary legislation? It does not encroach in any way on provincial
rights. Nor does it add to them.
The bill before the House today calls on all Canadians, including
the provinces, to come together to develop a strategy that combines
a harnessing of the oceans' economic potential with respect for the
oceans' environmental needs. The national environmental agenda
can no longer be separated from the national economic agenda or
the social foreign policy agendas.
The preamble to Bill C-26 is visionary, thorough and inclusive.
It is the convergence of visions of all Canadians from all across the
nation for responsible ocean management. Members of the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans have worked hard to
make those visions a reality in the legislation. They worked hard to
ensure that Bill C-26 is inclusionary and that it fosters co-operation
between the federal government and the provinces.
Provincial involvement in the management of our oceans is a
given with the collaborative approach espoused by the bill. For that
reason I hope all members will support the Canada Oceans Act and
all it represents for ocean management, and Motion No. 1 proposed
by the government to amend the preamble. At the same time I
recommend members vote down the official opposition's proposed
amendments, Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, as unnecessary, given the
3592
statements already contained within the preamble and those
proposed by the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the member who
just spoke in this House tried to minimize the importance of our
amendments and, before reacting to his remarks, I would like to
react to the amendment brought forward by the government. I will
remind the House that it is a motion to amend an act intituled An
Act respecting the oceans of Canada.
There are, of course, three oceans. Quebec is particularly
concerned with the Atlantic and its gulf. We can see that the bill is a
new way for the federal government to try to and go even further in
its attack on resources at all levels.
As a former member of the human resources development
committee, I was surprised when I saw this legislation, when I saw
that, even in the area of natural resources, the federal government
had the same thing in mind, that is to ignore the provinces,
particularly Quebec. Obviously Quebec's interests are our first
priority, and we can see in this bill that the provinces are treated
like municipalities or any community.
For the federal government, the national strategy is inspired by
Captain Canada, the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the
one who admonished Spain and all that. It looks like the federal
government has all the responsibilities. The government develops
this plan and thinks that the opposition will sit idly and watch as
this attack is going on on all fronts.
So, what does the Liberal Party's Motion No. 1 contain? Wishful
thinking. A lot of it. This is what I would call a hypocritical move
to make them look good. It is true that the notion of provincial
governments has been included, but it is buried in amongst
aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons
and bodies.
If the federal government truly wishes to respect provincial
governments, let it show it by passing the motions proposed by the
Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, which really involve the
provinces. Without some concrete action by the federal
government, this motion remains a smoke screen.
(1810)
What do we hope to accomplish with Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4?
We want it clearly included in the bill that the provinces of Canada
must be able to exercise their jurisdiction with respect to oceans
and their resources. Limiting the federal government's power by
including and respecting the power of the provinces is the whole
focus of the official opposition's efforts concerning the
amendments to this bill.
Even if the motions are short, I think they should be read. They
are being skimmed over as if it made no difference. Motion No. 2
proposes the following:
``WHEREAS the provinces of Canada also exercise legislative jurisdiction
with respect to oceans and their resources,''.
Motion No. 3 proposes:
That Bill C-26, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 15, on page 1,
with the following:
``sources in concert with the provinces, taking into account the areas of
jurisdiction of each level of government;''.
Motion No. 4 proposes that Bill C-26, in the Preamble-we
know how important the preamble is in the Constitution, and it is
the same in acts-be amended as follows:
``and Oceans, in collaboration with provincial governments, with
interested''.
bodies.
We are presenting these motions because we know history often
repeats itself. Quebecers feel that they have often been tricked by
the federal government in the past. I am trying to think of an
equivalent ocean image. I have one. Coming from the riding of
Lévis, where MIL Davie is located, I would say that we have often
watched others sail on by.
This time we will be vigilant, and we are saying that, through its
amendments, the federal government is still trying to reinforce its
role and steamroller ahead with centralization. All the people from
the Gaspé, from the Baie des Chaleurs, from the Gulf and from the
North Shore are asking the official opposition to defend them. That
is what we intend to do in this House and in committee.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the
motions before the House the Reform Party would like to be on
record as saying that we agree with the parliamentary secretary on
Motion No. 1. We will be supporting it because it fits with what we
believe Canadians want. It certainly fits with what the Reform
Party has been talking about, which is an ecosystem conservation
based approach to our oceans, coastal waters and estuaries.
In speaking to Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the Bloc amendments,
we offer the following. It is very clear a great deal of hostility is
generated in the regions of Canada toward Ottawa over either the
real or perceived overlap of jurisdiction or imposing of jurisdiction
where Ottawa is interjecting itself in areas where it ought not to be.
I certainly understand the feelings of the members in the Bloc
and other members in the House, along with people right across the
country, when it comes to the question of jurisdiction.
3593
Upon examining the oceans act and upon contemplating what
is attempted to be achieved in the act, it is clear many of the
concerns members of the Bloc or members in other regions of
Canada might have with respect to Ottawa's jurisdiction cannot
be overcome by transferring that jurisdiction to provinces.
For example, many marine resources are transitory: fish,
wildlife, seals, birds and so on. They do not respect international
boundaries as they do not respect provincial boundaries. They
continue in their life cycles without regard to human action or
human activity.
(1815)
It is therefore very important that we have a national approach to
husbanding and looking out for Canada's marine resources. Not
only that, there are many international aspects and implications for
Canada's marine resources and the oceans act does address them in
a responsible manner for the most part. However, it is incumbent
upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to engage in a much
broader consultation with the provinces in many areas. That is why
on Motion No. 3 we will be moving a subamendment. We have
given notice to both the Liberal Party and the Bloc that we will be
moving a subamendment. I move:
That Motion No. 3 be amended by deleting the following: ``taking into
account the areas of jurisdiction of each level of government''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will take the
subamendment under advisement and I will return to the House
without too much delay.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, we were speaking to motions in Group
No. 2, on which the hon. member has already spoken, whereas
there are still some speakers left on this side of the House who
would like to discuss Group No. 2. I therefore respectfully ask you,
Mr. Speaker, to recognize the hon. member for Richelieu, who
would like to speak on Group No. 2.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I remember full well that the
parliamentary secretary started off the debate on the first group of
motions, Group No. 2. I have just given the floor to the
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Trade; it is
not the same one. It is now Mr. Macdonald, the member for
Dartmouth.
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see
this bill return to the House at report stage.
In a previous life in a past Parliament I had the privilege to chair
the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I thank all
members of that committee, including the current chair, the hon.
member for Egmont, for the diligent work which was done by
them in looking at this bill.
I also commend the hon. member for Skeena who was on the
committee. He showed that he has a deep interest and a very deep
understanding of the requirement of governments to look
periodically at the way they do things with a measure toward doing
them a little better, with a little more consistency and a little more
efficiency.
With respect to the comments which were made a moment ago
by our colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would have to say
unfortunately that I cannot be as magnanimous. Some of the
amendments which I see in this first batch are not reflective of the
support the bill received from a wide variety of sources as we
deliberated it in committee. The Bloc Quebecois seemed more
interested not in improving the bill but in making statements about
Quebec sovereignty and jurisdiction. That is unfortunate but as
every committee member has the right to do, their time is their
own. It is their own nickel and they can do with it as they see fit.
(1820)
I cannot help but note that the amendments put forward by the
Bloc Quebecois in no way reflected the testimony we heard. Some
of the amendments that were put forward by the Reform Party,
some of which I did not agree with, had some basis in fact.
Individuals we heard had different points of view on various
aspects of the bill and the member from the Reform Party would
find some support there.
This bill is very long overdue. The individuals we heard from in
the environmental sector, the individuals who are most impacted by
this bill said that this bill was too long in coming. They applauded
that the bill had been put forward. Many had different points of
view about various aspects of the bill and suggestions as to how
those various aspects could be improved upon. However, they all
agreed that an oceans act was long overdue.
With a country like Canada and its maritime coastal zones from
sea to sea to sea which is one of the longest continuous coastlines in
the entire world, most said it was high time there was some order
put into the very statutes and programs the federal government
administers which have an impact on the marine resource. This bill
seeks to consolidate under one minister, one department and one
act much of that activity and much has been done. Over 14 different
programs or departmental areas are under one jurisdiction now, that
is, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
There was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing from various bureaucrats
and various ministries as to why some of the jurisdictional issues
should best be left with environment or with natural resources. I
argued then as I will today that the oceans act is a good first step
but that we must continue to look at some of the areas that might be
3594
better placed directly under the jurisdiction of the minister of
fisheries.
I think of some pieces of legislation that are currently with the
Minister of the Environment dealing with deep ocean dumping and
also with the Arctic Ocean that should be further studied by a
committee of this place, perhaps a subcommittee or a joint
committee of the fisheries and oceans committee and the
environment and sustainable development committee. There has
been some discussion and I hope this is not seen as the end of this
work but is seen to be the very important beginning of a longer
examination.
There were some great witnesses. We heard from many
witnesses. We heard from Canadian Arctic Resource Council
which was instrumental in guiding us through this bill. When
people asked what kind of consultation had been done before the
bill came before the Parliament of Canada, all one had to do was
look at the CARC brief. CARC had worked for quite a long time
and had become the spokesperson for dozens and dozens of
interested organizations and groups. When it came down to the
short strokes, CARC was instrumental in assisting me as chairman
and assisting the committee in coming up with some of the words
and some of the amendments that further clarified this bill and
made it a better piece of legislation.
I want to thank the people at the World Wildlife Fund,
Greenpeace, the many fishermen we heard from, and many others
who had an interest and came forward. In every case they came
forward with the express interest not of scuttling the bill, not of
putting it off, but of genuinely trying to improve it.
This bill works on a precautionary principle. It works on the
principle of sustainable development. It clearly indicates that the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the primary responsibility in
various areas dealing with sustainable development, the marine
resource.
It instils in the minister the responsibility to take a co-ordinated
approach with his cabinet colleagues and departments to ensure
that those principles are the primary principles under which all
government programs and legislation is reviewed with respect to
Canada's oceans. That is very important.
(1825 )
One of the most important things that has happened and which
the bill speaks to is it also ensures there is a new terminology on the
Canadian political landscape, which is marine protected areas. For
many years environmentalists such as those in CARC and the
World Wildlife Fund, fishermen and the Nunavut have indicated
very clearly that there is a need for the establishment of marine
protected areas in Canadian legislation. These are areas with such
unique ecosystems that they must be protected under Canadian law.
Someone has to take charge and make sure there is a single
individual with the responsibility to protect those areas of our
oceans with unique ecosystems. That has been established in this
bill. It is probably one reason this bill has received so much public
attention and support.
I want to close by indicating how pleased I am that the
government with the support of the main parties in the House have
agreed to bring this bill back. One concern I had when we ended the
last session was that the very good work done by committees would
have been for naught.
In this case the committee can stand proud and show that all
members, no matter what their political stripe, can have a very
positive impact on legislation that goes through this place. There is
no question there were some problems. I mentioned that the Bloc
Quebecois continued to put amendments forward and they will
defend those amendments in the House.
Those amendments were not supported by any testimony we
heard. Rather they were a part of their political ideology and
philosophy that at every turn in the road they will try to attack
anything that even looks like a humiliation of the province of
Quebec or that somehow every piece of federal legislation is trying
to take something away from provincial jurisdiction. I can say with
a clear mind and a clear conscience there is nothing in the bill
which takes away from any provincial jurisdiction, including
Quebec.
It is unfortunate that the only real problem we had when
examining this bill was when we heard from the fishermen and
plant workers from Nova Scotia. The problem we had was that an
irresponsible member of the provincial legislature, a New
Democrat, Mr. Chisolm, who has since gone on to be the leader of
the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia, almost incited the
fishermen and the fish plant workers into a riot by saying that the
bill was going to impose fees, privatize the fishery, and all of these
ugly things that people on this side of the House do not support.
What he did was very reckless. My understanding is that Mr.
Chisolm, who I guess aspires to be the premier of the province of
Nova Scotia some day, did not even bother to read the bill before he
set out on his task of going around the province delivering
misinformation at every turn of the road. I am sure that Mr.
Chisolm has lost some of his personal charisma because the men
and women from the fishery who chose to appear before the
committee did have a concern and listened to what we had to say. I
hope today they are supporting the report of the committee that the
bill goes forward expeditiously and finally we will have the Canada
Oceans Act proclaimed as law.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
astonished to hear the former chair of the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans exhibit such ignorance on this matter. He
3595
speaks of the unanimity of the witnesses heard, supposedly in
favour of this bill, whereas a number of them, the majority, I would
even say, saw a need for change, for very concrete amendments.
According to the correspondence and the many phone calls
received by the Bloc Quebecois, they would like to see the official
opposition reel in this bill to make amendments to it, particularly
along the lines of Motions Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the group of motions
we are discussing today.
(1830)
If this hon. member is serious, if this government is serious, let
them stop talking about respecting jurisdictions, let them adopt the
motions we have presented, which address exactly that. Our hon.
colleague from the Reform Party was saying more or less the same
thing just now. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the amendment you are
having your officers look at right now is along the lines of what I
have referred to. I know they are being guided by your wisdom, Mr.
Speaker.
I was saying that, despite arguments by the Government of
Quebec, reasonable claims and not matters of privilege, the
province's fair share has always been manipulated if not
engineered by the government, and worse in the case of a Liberal
federal government, because that says it all.
It means engineering and on a grand scale. It means prolific, but
unkept, federal election promises-the GST, Canadian heritage, for
example, the fact that copyright would be a matter for the
Department of Canadian Heritage rather than the Department of
Industry-all this appears in the election promises in the red book
but it is all swept aside.
After the election, they return to the good old days of Liberal
engineering, trickery, the old boys network-as protected by the
former Minister of Canadian Heritage, who hosted 20 people at a
$2,000 a person cocktail party, thus raising $40,000 for the party.
Seven of these people had been given government discretionary
contracts directly by his department.
This is the government, with its good old Liberal habits. They
look after their friends; they appoint lawyers to head commissions.
Out comes the money, and friends are well cared for. When it
comes to revealing names in committee on financial protection or
transfers of $2 billion, that sort of thing must remain secret, in
order to protect party coffers. This is, in essence, the Liberal
government. And they ask us to trust them, to believe in them, to
trust that things are being done right, that jurisdictions will be
respected. When did the federal government ever respect
provincial jurisdictions?
Mines are not under its jurisdiction, but it has its nose stuck in
them. Same thing for tourism. How many departments has the
government stuck its big foot in that, constitutionally, should be
run by the provinces? In sticking its big foot in, the government
has simply aggravated problems and created division. Is this a
government we want to trust?
As the previous speaker, the parliamentary secretary, has just
said, we want what is expressed very clearly in amendments Nos.
2, 3 and 4. And yet here again we are dreaming. I remind the
parliamentary secretary, who spoke to us earlier, that such dreams
are often decisions that were not made at the right time.
We have long wanted to put everything together under a single
department and to improve all aspects of management from coast
to coast, as the first speaker was saying. We do not, however, want
this to be done at our expense, and this division into three parts is
exactly what outraged all the opponents who appeared before the
committee, as Quebec once again will end up paying the highest
price. Once again, this reform will be carried out at our expense.
Even though it is nothing new, even though we are used to being
had, in this case, you will hear us on every motion, you will hear us
in committee; we will win this fight because the whole population
will be strongly opposed. You will have to answer for your actions
in the next election campaign, which may come earlier than you
think. I do not advise them to go ahead and try.
It would be really bad timing with the kind of bills we have been
dealing with lately, especially this one, which will have a very
significant economic impact on Quebec. It will turn the situation
completely around and may push maritime transport toward the
United States, especially Philadelphia, which developed a very
aggressive policy to attract clients, or move more deeply into the
east as far as Quebec's major ports are concerned.
(1835)
We would like to improve this bill. We do not want to vote
against it, but we would like the government to pay close attention
to our suggestions and to take concrete action, that is to say, we
would like the Liberals to sign some papers because they never
keep their word.
The worst thing that could happen is to give responsibility for
such a vague bill to this Prime Minister, who personifies all the
Liberal shenanigans since he has been in that party for more than
25 years, as well as their many broken promises and their
characteristic administrative mediocrity when in power, and who
would reject the logical and proper amendments we are proposing.
It would be a little like putting Dracula in charge of the Red Cross
blood bank. That is about what would happen if we trusted the
government with this. I can hear people in the audience laughing,
but the example I just gave you is much more serious than you
think.
Like all its predecessors, the Liberal government embodies the
failure to honour not only its own commitments but also, when
given the opportunity in a bill, the intentions of those who voted in
favour, of the committees who heard witnesses, and of the
witnesses who came to demand changes or to propose amendments
3596
that would help all the people directly affected by the proposed
restructuring.
In closing, I say to the Liberals that, if they are really acting in
good faith, if they really want this bill to be passed quickly and
properly, as my colleague was saying earlier, they should look at
these issues in a more comprehensive and respectful way and find
other arguments than those used by the previous speaker to reject
the changes wanted by the people, the users and the Bloc
Quebecois as well as by several members of the Reform Party who
spoke to this bill. The government has an opportunity to show how
open it is to valuable suggestions, and I hope that amendments 2, 3
and 4 will be supported by most of the members in this House.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am ready to give a ruling
on the amendment moved by the member for Skeena that Motion
No. 3 be amended by deleting the following: ``taking into account
the areas of jurisdiction of each level of government''. That
amendment is in order.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise in this House this evening to speak on this bill. I must confess
that I am fresh off the plane. Modern transportation enables us to
travel rather quickly from one end of the country to the other.
The important thing to remember about this bill is that 13 groups
of motions relate to it. The bill has three parts. The first group of
motions deal with the first part of the bill, whose main intent is to
incorporate the new law of the sea vocabulary, under the new
United Nations convention Canada has not yet signed.
There may be worthwhile elements in there. I caught bits and
pieces of the remarks made by the committee's former chairman,
and I should perhaps put a couple of things right. We may agree on
the need to upgrade certain aspects, but when we have to ask that
the provinces' jurisdiction be respected, why is it that it takes them
so long to understand?
My reading of the situation is that what is proposed to us in this
bill and in the amendments put forward by the Liberals is just
diluting the amendments we had discussed at committee, drowning
the fish so to speak.
(1840)
I have nothing against coastal or aboriginal communities or any
other persons and bodies concerned with ocean management. Not
at all. My point is that this umbrella legislation will have tentacular
ramifications. We will see later that the purpose of Part II is to
develop a management strategy involving all the various
departments.
I would like to have the assurance that the provinces and
territories that make up Canada will be heard at the first level of
consultation. Why try to dilute this principle?
At this point, I would like to make a short digression. I was not
going to raise the issue today, but I was led to do so. We are not
trying to talk only about sovereignty and to play politics but, last
December, in this House, the other side passed a motion
recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. That day, the government
wanted to tell us we were different, but when it comes to
legislation, it refuses to state clearly that Quebec is a player in the
process.
The other provinces may not be interested, or they may not see
things the way we do regarding this legislation and how to manage
fisheries and waters adjacent to their coasts. This is fine, but why
try to take away from us the right to manage these waters and
fisheries, the right to take part in this process? I have been
wondering about this for two and a half years.
I will always protect and actively promote the interests of
Quebecers. I tried to do so through my work on the committee on
Bill C-26, but in vain. I do not have it with me, but I even received
a letter from our former colleague from the other side, Brian Tobin,
concerning this bill, in which he said: ``Mr. Bernier, your
suggestion regarding a real partnership will be implemented''. This
was not done.
If Mr. Tobin was sincere-and I believe he was when he made
these comments-, and assuming he were still a member of this
government, I think he would take into account our proposed
amendments. He would be true to his word and he would support
these amendments, which only seek to ensure relations between the
federal and provincial governments are clearly defined, because
this is not currently the case. The provinces are included, but so are
other interest groups and it should not be the case. It should not be
the case.
Let me give you one last example. About two weeks ago, two or
three provinces were involved in the crab fishery dispute. The
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is here right now, did
nothing. He did not meet with the workers concerned.
Who made an effort to settle the issue? It is the provinces.
Quebec met with its workers, and so did New Brunswick. Given
such facts, why is it that the federal government does not want to
give priority, in an act, to relations with the provinces?
New Brunswick was reluctantly dragged into the crab fishery
conflict. From the outset, its fisheries minister said the issue came
under federal jurisdiction. It turned out to be a mistake, since
people in his riding threw stones at his house when he told them to
go back fishing because the minister did not want to budge. The
3597
main thing is that the province was forced to get involved in the
conflict, even though the issue came under federal jurisdiction.
(1845)
New Brunswick had to come up with solutions for its own
residents. That is the conclusion drawn by the New Brunswick
Minister of Fisheries, who does not agree at all with the
sovereignty option I support. According to this minister, the
members of the provincial legislative assemblies are closer to the
people, they are more aware of the problems; they are also the ones
who took the beating this time.
I do not think it will be the last time. More and more often, the
people are going to appeal to their MLAs. True, here, in Ottawa, we
are a bit out of touch with reality. We are blinded, not sufficiently
aware of what is going on in the ridings.
I have always thought that for every local problem there was a
local solution. People came up with solutions. There are
negotiations under way, but I will not elaborate on this issue for
now. All this to show that, in spite of themselves, the provinces
must take an active part in management, along with the
government which drafted this piece of legislation.
Since we are still part of the federal system, something I have to
acknowledge, can we get some recognition? Anyway, we-that is
to say the provinces-will have a key role to play. They must report
to Ottawa the whys and wherefores of the wishes of their residents.
They have to negotiate with Ottawa. They have to ensure that
Ottawa has understood. They sometimes have to put their vision
against the vision of the other provinces, to ensure that the great
legislator in Ottawa will be enlightened when the time comes.
This bill hints at the development of a management strategy.
They talk about an integrated oceans management system, with all
that it implies, but what we need to do at the outset is to define our
position with the provinces, and that is not being done. This is more
than just rhetoric, more than a war of words, it is a true statement of
the real need to operate this way.
Those who claim to be uninterested in this type of partnership
will see their relationship with the federal government unchanged.
The first thing we have to realize is that some of the players are
different, they have different problems and different needs. I will
limit my comments to this group of motions.
I will listen to the debate tonight. I will be here tomorrow if it is
still under consideration. As long as the government does not get
the message, we will repeat it over and over again.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to take a few minutes to speak to this bill, which in
my view reveals the federal government's true intentions with
regard to the evolution of Canadian federalism.
It seems an obvious response to all those who dream of a
decentralized Canada that could, for some federalists, be a
response to the legitimate aspirations toward sovereignty of the
people of Quebec.
According to one school of thought, Canada could be more
decentralized. Since the provincial governments are closer to their
constituents, they should have more powers to provide for the
welfare of the people.
Here is a bill where the federal government barely recognizes the
existence of the provincial governments, putting them on an equal
footing with aboriginal communities, coastal communities and
other stakeholders, even though this legislation affects directly
Canadians from each of the 10 provinces. When one adds that to
what it wants to do with the securities commission, the coast guard,
etc., one gets a pretty good idea of the government's intentions.
(1850)
This can also be seen in another aspect of the activity of the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, where the government wants
to impose a tax on all water equipment. If you have a cottage and if
you have the misfortune of owning a pedalboat, a canoe, a rowboat
or a sailboard, your pleasure will be diminished from now on
because you will have to pay a $5 to $35 tax to the federal
government for this equipment. And all that without any direct
involvement of or consultation with the provincial governments.
The federal government intends to establish partnerships with all
kinds of regional organizations so it can collect these new
revenues. And the excuse-the minister has mentioned it several
times already-is public safety, because there have been some
drownings. Well, of course, when you are around water, there may
be drownings every year.
It is hard to disagree, all the more so because public safety is the
only argument the government has really used to justify slapping
another tax on the humble citizen in his pursuit of recreation, not
being sure it could count on those whose boats truly qualify as
pleasure craft, with all the costs that these entail, when you are
talking about boats 20, 30, 40 or 50 feet long that must have a
captain on board, and knowing that this falls in the private domain.
Personally, I would be curious to know how these people actually
are taxed, how they do their bit for the national treasury, when we
know that the reason the operation concerning pleasure boats is so
extensive is to ensure that the tax man gets his bite.
To get back to my premise, I would just like to say that the very
fact that the federal government is going ahead in this way is a
complete contradiction, and should sound a warning among
English Canadians, who are wondering what to do about the rising
tide of sovereignists. Despite what some people might think, I do
not
3598
think that right now in Ottawa, in the Langevin Block, there is the
will to decentralize the Canadian federation. There is an
increasingly obvious desire to see that the real decisions are taken
here in Ottawa.
That may be fine for Canadians, because it seems that English
Canadians' primary sense of loyalty is to the federal government,
in a proportion, compared to Quebec, of 20-80 according to our
information. Twenty per cent of English Canadians say that their
first loyalty is to their provincial government, and 80 per cent say
that it is to the federal government. In Quebec, the percentages are
reversed: 20 per cent to the federal government, and 80 per cent to
the Government of Quebec.
So, that is all very fine and well, a form of decentralization
which is only a dream at the moment, because there is no actual
sign of it. But in the case of Quebec, if they ever manage to
decentralize the Canadian federation, it will be contrary to the
profound aspirations of the people of Quebec, who are turning, and
this is becoming increasingly clear, unanimously, legitimately and
ever more decisively, in the direction of sovereignty, that is to say
partnership, the fairest, the most legitimate, the most harmonious
and undoubtedly the most cost effective direction for Canada and
Quebec in an economic partnership that respects both political
entities.
(1855)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on
Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to find out something from
the Chair about what has just been done. We have voted on Motion
No. 1, one of the four making up Group No. 2. In Group No. 2,
then, we still have Motions No. 2, 3 and 4, of course, and I would
like to announce our intention to vote on these three in a different
way.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4
cannot be voted on until we have taken the vote on Motion No. 1.
[English]
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 5, 22, 38, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52,
57 to 64, 72, 74, 75, 89, 90 and 91.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-26, in Clause 2.1, be amended in the French version by replacing
line 16, on page 3, with the following:
``ne porte pas atteinte aux droits existants-ancestraux''.
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-26, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 25, on page 11,
with the following:
``the Minister contain-''.
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended in the French version
(a) by replacing line 11, on page 16, with the following:
``ral, relativement aux activités ou mesures touchant les'';
(b) by replacing lines 14 to 16, on page 16, with the following:
``ment avec d'autres ministres ou organismes fédéraux ou d'autres personnes
de droit public ou de droit privé, et après avoir pris en considération le point de
vue d'autres ministres et organismes fédéraux, des gouvernements
provinciaux et territoriaux et des organisations autochtones, des collectivités
côtières et des autres personnes de droit public et de droit privé intéressées, y
compris celles constituées dans le cadre d'accords sur des revendications
territoriales, constituer des organismes de consul-''; and
(c) by replacing lines 22 to 26, on page 16, with the following:
``ministres et organismes fédéraux, les gouvernements provinciaux et
territoriaux et les organisations autochtones, les collectivités côtières et les
autres personnes de droit public et de droit privé intéressées, y compris celles
constituées dans le cadre d'accords sur des revendications territoriales, établir
des directives,''.
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 32.1.
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended in the French version
(a) by replacing lines 9 to 14, on page 17, with the following:
3599
``a) coopère avec d'autres ministres et organismes fédéraux, les
gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux et les organisations autochtones, les
collectivités côtières et les autres personnes de droit public et de droit privé
intéressées, y compris celles constituées dans le cadre d'accords sur des
revendications territoriales;''; and
(b) by replacing lines 30 to 36, on page 17, with the following:
``par la présente partie, le ministre peut consulter d'autres ministres et
organismes fédéraux, les gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux et les
organisations autochtones, les collectivités côtières et les autres personnes de
droit public et de droit privé intéressées, y compris celles constituées dans le
cadre d'accords sur des revendica-''.
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-26, in Clause 35, be amended
(a) in the French version, by replacing line 10, on page 18, with the
following:
``autres, y compris les mammifères marins, et de'';
(b) in the French version, by replacing lines 21 and 22, on page 18, with the
following:
``ressources ou habitats marins, pour la réalisation du mandat du minis-'';
(c) in the English version, by replacing line 25, on page 18, with the following:
``ment plans referred to in sections 31 and'';
(d) by replacing lines 33 and 34, on page 18, with the following:
(a) designating marine protected areas; and'';
(e) in the French version, by replacing line 34, on page 18, with the following:
``b) prendre toute mesure compatible avec l'objet de la désignation,
notamment:''; and
(f) in the French version, by deleting lines 39 and 40, on page 18.
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-26, in Clause 37, be amended in the French version by replacing
line 15, on page 19, with the following:
``l'exercice d'un pouvoir prévu à l'alinéa 35(3)b)''.
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-26, in Clause 39, be amended in the French version by replacing
line 11, on page 20, with the following:
``toute personne agissant sous la direction ou l'autorité''.
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-26, in Clause 39.5, be amended by replacing line 41, on page 22,
with the following:
``ture or disposition incurred by Her Majesty in right of Canada in''.
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-26, in Clause 39.6, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 36, on
page 23, with the following:
``(b) the additional fine may exceed the maximum amount of any fine that may
otherwise be imposed under this Act.''
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-26, in Clause 39.7, be amended by replacing line 43, on page 23,
with the following:
``Majesty in right of Canada.''
Motion No. 62
That Bill C-26, in Clause 39.9, be amended in the French version
(a) by replacing lines 19 and 20, on page 24, with the following:
``a) s'abstenir de tout acte ou activité risquant, selon le tribunal, d'entraîner
la continuation de'';
(b) by replacing line 22, on page 24, with the following:
``b) prendre les mesures que le tribunal estime indi-'';
(c) by replacing line 27, on page 24, with the following:
``c) publier, de la façon indiquée par le tribunal, les'';
(d) by replacing line 42, on page 24, with the following:
``g) satisfaire aux autres exigences que le tribunal''; and
(e) by replacing line 2, on page 25, with the following:
``du tribunal le montant que celui-ci estime indiqué.''
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-26, in Clause 39.10, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 20, on
page 25, with the following:
``sentence pursuant to the Criminal Code, the court may, in addition to any
probation order made on suspending the passing of that sentence, make an
order containing one or''.
Motion No. 64
That Bill C-26, in Clause 39.11, be amended
(a) in the English version by replacing line 31, on page 25, with the following:
``conviction in respect of an offence may be commenced at''; and
(b) in the French version by replacing line 22, on page 25, with the following:
``deux ans à compter de la date où le ministre a eu''.
Motion No. 72
That Bill C-26, in Clause 42, be amended
(a) in the English version, by replacing line 4, on page 28, with the following:
``fishing zones of Canada and adjacent waters;''; and
(b) in the French version, by replacing line 12, on page 28, with the following:
``j) effectuer des études pour mettre à profit les''.
Motion No. 74
That Bill C-26, in Clause 43, be amended in the French version
(a) by replacing lines 32 and 33, on page 28, with the following:
``peut à cet effet établir ou maintenir-notamment à bord de navires-des
instituts de recherche, des labora-'';
3600
(b) by replacing line 36, on page 28, with the following:
``fonctionnement. Il peut, de plus,''; and
(c) by replacing lines 41 and 42, on page 28, with the following:
``États, aux organismes internationaux et à toute autre personne.''
Motion No. 75
That Bill C-26, in Clause 45, be amended in the French version
(a) by replacing lines 24 and 25, on page 29, with the following:
``ves, à l'intention notamment des hydrographes, relativement à la collecte
des données''; and
(b) by replacing lines 32 and 33, on page 29, with the following:
``États, aux organismes internationaux et à toute autre personne.''
Motion No. 89
That Bill C-26, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 10 and 11, on
page 31, with the following:
``within three years after the coming into force of this section, be reviewed by
the Standing Committee''.
Motion No. 90
That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 22, on page 31, the following
new Clause:
``52.1 The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister,
make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act and, in
particular, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make
regulations
(a) prescribing marine environmental quality requirements and standards;
(b) respecting the powers and duties of persons designated by the Minister as
enforcement officers; and
(c) respecting the implementation of provisions of agreements made under this
Act.''
Motion No. 91
That Bill C-26, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 25, on page
31, with the following:
``53. If Bill C-25, introduced during the second session of the thirty-fifth
Parliament and entitled An Act respecting regulations and other documents,
including the review,''.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 35, on page 17,
with the following:
``Part, the Minister shall act in concert with the provinces and may consult
with other''.
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 35, on page 17,
with the following:
``Part, the Minister shall consult with the provinces and the standing
committee and may consult with other''.
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-26, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing line 33, on page 18,
with the following:
``(a) with the approval of the standing committee, establishing marine
protected areas''.
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-26, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing line 33, on page 18,
with the following:
``(a) establishing protected areas for fishery resources,''.
[
Translation]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to
resume speaking in favour of Bill C-26, An Act respecting the
oceans of Canada.
All Canadians who have followed the progress of this bill to any
extent at all will know that the members of the Standing Committee
on Fisheries and Oceans have worked very hard to ensure that Bill
C-26 is given a thorough and detailed examination.
The committee called witnesses representing more than 30
groups and organizations from everywhere in Canada during its
several weeks of hearings. Not only did the Committee call those
witnesses, it listened attentively to what each of them had to say, it
listened to what all Canadians have had to say constantly for some
years now: our country needs legislation to ensure the proper
management of our oceans by including in the legislation the
concepts of sustainable development, an ecosystem approach and
one based on the precautionary approach to the conservation,
management and exploitation of marine resources.
Canadians want legislation that will acknowledge the value and
importance of traditional ecological knowledge with respect to
ocean management. In fact, not a single witness nor anyone else
has said: ``We do not need a act respecting the oceans of Canada''.
Instead, what they have all said is the opposite: the law could do
with some reinforcing. And that is exactly what has been done.
[English]
Equally important, the committee listened to the provinces and
territories and proposed an amendment that guarantees
collaboration with their governments as well as with affected
aboriginal organizations, with coastal communities and with ocean
stakeholders.
We should thank them for the work they have done. What hon.
members have before them is an act that is both forward looking
and solid in its principles. One of the goals when constructing this
act was to ensure it was built on the most solid of foundations.
From this foundation will come better decisions about ocean
management.
3601
(1900 )
It is for this reason that the government examined every clause,
every line and every word of the bill as it has been reported to be
sure that the foundation was solid, that it is an act that demonstrates
to the citizens of this country that the government understands and
respects what they want for the oceans surrounding Canada.
In this examination, the government discovered minor
transcription errors, improvements that could be made in the
quality and clarity of the wording and minor inconsistencies
between the French and English versions of the text. Technical
amendments can be found in Motions Nos. 5, 22, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57,
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 72, 74, 75, 89, 90 and 91. Although these
technical amendments may seem minor, the government
recognized that without them, there could have been
misinterpretation of the act.
The act makes it possible for Canadians to work together to
shape the best national answers and the best local answers for the
sustainable development of our ocean resources. The various
technical improvements proposed by the government will add
clarity to the act.
The basic criterion of an act of Parliament is certainty and
flexibility. We believe the Canada Oceans Act balances these two
principles of certainty and flexibility. We urge all members to vote
for Motions Nos. 5, 22, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,
72, 74, 75, 89, 90 and 91.
Motions Nos. 47 and 48 by the Bloc Quebecois amend the same
line in the text of the bill in two different ways. What does the Bloc
Quebecois actually want? This section of the bill lays out the
overall consultative theme of this bill and gives the minister the
option of consulting with anyone or everyone on matters pertaining
to part II of the bill.
Motion No. 47 proposes that the minister and the provinces
together will consult with all the other players with respect to part
II of this bill. Why would the provinces be consulting on something
that is not within their jurisdiction?
May I suggest some better attention by the Bloc to the
constitutional roles and missions, ordinary legislation versus
constitutional amending procedures. It seems to me that the Bloc
amendments propose to achieve by indirection constitutional
changes that belong elsewhere. We are into a species of creeping
constitutional amendments as to federal-provincial powers. That is
not acceptable in ordinary legislation presented to this House.
The people of Canada have not asked that there be 10 leaders in
the management of our oceans. They have asked that there be one.
Therefore, Motion No. 47 must be rejected.
Motion No. 48 proposes that the minister must consult with all
the provinces and standing committee in exercising his mandate in
part II of this bill. This detracts from the flexibility of this section,
which allows the minister to consult with the appropriate provinces
or groups when an issue is relevant to them. It is not always
necessary to consult with everyone when a matter may only have
relevance to a particular province, territory or group.
Furthermore, this motion obliges the minister to consult with the
standing committee in exercising his mandate in part II of this bill.
This would involve the standing committee in the day by day
decision making of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
I remind the House again of what I said about creeping
constitutional amendments. There seems to be a lack of respect for
the constitutional separation of powers in this proposed
amendment by the Bloc. It raises constitutional issues that are more
appropriately dealt with in other arenas and in other processes not
in the interstices of ordinary legislation devoted to oceans.
Besides the standing committee in its review of this bill already
put in a section to allow the standing committee to review the
implementation of this act in three years. For these reasons, Motion
No. 48, as proposed, should be rejected.
Furthermore, the Bloc proposed through Motions Nos. 51 and 52
to make two separate changes to the same line of the same clause
35. These changes would require the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans to seek the approval of the standing committee to exercise
his mandate as it relates to the establishment of marine protected
areas. It would also effectively restrict the establishment of these
protected areas to fishery resources.
This is totally contrary to the testimony presented to the standing
committee by Canadians from across the country. There are more
living resources and habitats in the sea than only those that are
fished and certainly there are many more worth protecting.
Therefore, I ask all members to support the act by voting against
Motions Nos. 47, 48, 51 and 52 and to support the passage of the
Canada Oceans Act to the next stage of the legislative process.
(1905)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what the
parliamentary secretary forgets or fails to see in this, when he says
this is not the place to discuss the Constitution, is that I did not try
to constitutionalize my proposals and I am not talking about
constitutionalizing either.
What I say to them is that there are problems at the moment and
that the federal government is not equipped to deal with the
situation. I say they should look directly, look at the provinces
which are prepared to play and they will avoid a pack of troubles. It
is easy enough to understand. There is no need for constitutional
meetings on the matter. However, sticking one's head in the sand is
3602
worse. You cannot stick your head in the sand saying that you do
not want to deal with the matter, that it involves the
Constitution. When you have problems to face, you do not stick
your head in the sand.
It does not take much for the government to say it will
co-operate with the provinces, that it will talk to them directly. I
can understand if it says it does not want to involve all 10
provinces. Alberta is perhaps less concerned about the oceans than
perhaps either Quebec or Nova Scotia. It neither hurts nor takes
anything away from the rest of Canada. That means that the
meetings will go very quickly. Only the provinces concerned will
be there. As for those that are not interested because of other
problems or that prefer to let Ottawa handle it because they do not
have the time, if it suits them, fine.
What I am saying is that it does not suit us and it is not reflected
there. I did not ask for a constitutional rewrite. I only asked that the
fact that we have to work with the provinces be taken into account.
We have no choice in the matter.
There are other things we have to keep an eye on. With Motion
No. 51, for example, we are asking for a consultation process, we
want the matter to be sent back to the committee. Even though the
parliamentary secretary tells us that the other place looked at it and
said that it should go back to the committee every three years, it
does not hurt to put it in here anyhow. I would rather know that it is
the elected representatives in this House who are going to decide
what to do with this bill. We are the ones who, within six months to
a year, are going to face the people during the next election. I
cannot tell my constituents in Gaspé that I could do nothing about
it, that it had already been decided by the other place. It just will
not work.
I am running out of time and words. There is a lot to say, but
when the new chair of the fisheries committee rise-he is a very
sensible man, at least he was last week-he too will recognize that
people of good will can get along.
This is what our motion is all about. Look around, I am not
talking about enshrining things in the Constitution. I believe that
when you revamp a law, you should take advantage of it to make it
more interesting. I already said at second reading that the principle
could be good, that it was smart for the right hand to know what the
left hand is doing.
(1910)
I wondered why federal departments needed legislation to talk
among to each other. However, it is there and we are trying to
improve it. We are telling the Liberals it is there and we know there
will be problems in relations with the provinces. We are
mentioning that and they tell us we are trying to talk about the
Constitution. I am not trying to talk about the Constitution, I am
trying to solve some problems.
Motion No. 52 deals with marine protected areas-I have to go a
little faster-but we would rather talk about protected areas for
fishery resources. Why? I think that can be easily understood.
The primary objective of this bill is, of course, to manage
oceans, but the second thing is-and I take this opportunity to point
this out to the parliamentary secretary off guard in case he wants to
comment later on-the Constitution provides that fisheries are
under federal jurisdiction. I would be tempted to change this, but
we will raise this some other time.
There are other management areas that are not outlined in the
Constitution. There are grayer areas. To avoid problems, I would
like that us to talk more specifically about fishery resources. If we
want to get into the other domain, marine protected areas, there
should be agreement with the provinces that make up Canada on
what this expression refers to, what the government wants to hide
in this expression, because it is unclear.
Is there a mixup or a misunderstanding, even if only in terms of
the environment? There, I have said it. There are problems with the
environment, even in the federal cabinet, at least there were in the
previous one, which operated until February. I can mention it, as
the two individuals concerned are no longer there.
When I questioned him at committee as to how Fisheries and
Oceans Canada and Environment Canada were getting along,
former fisheries minister Brian Tobin's answer was: ``Yvan, it is
like yin and yang''. At the time, Environment Canada was led by
Ms. Copps, who will be seeking re-election on June 17.
If two departments cannot agree on definitions, if they cannot
get along-and this is stictly at the federal level, in Ottawa-if two
members of the team, two experienced politicians like Mr. Tobin
and Ms. Copps, who worked together for a long time, cannot agree
on the issue, what are we to conclude? The problem is not just at
the personal level. Mr. Tobin's colourful language is well known. I
accepted his answer in good faith, because it was reported in
Hansard.
I am trying to give them a chance by saying: ``Let us not refer to
marine protected areas but to protected areas for fishery resources;
it is much clearer''. The other expression is unclear. How would the
provinces react if the federal government adopted this
terminology? Have officials, at the senior and deputy minister
level, met to try to make this designation clear for everyone? I do
not think so.
This bill was at the second reading stage when the former
fisheries minister commented on the relationship between his
3603
department and the Department of the Environment, led by Ms.
Copps, saying it was like yin and yang.
I will speak again over the course of the evening, but you can
already see that, on this group of motions alone, we could debate
for hours on end. That is exactly what we did in committee.
Unfortunately, I had to refrain from submitting some of my
arguments, because any argument defeated at committee cannot be
raised again in this House. As you can imagine, I have a lot to tell
you still and a great deal of information to share with the public.
(1915)
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the member for Gaspé. He is a member of the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I certainly appreciate his
participation on that committee over the last couple of years as he
brings a valuable perspective to the committee. I sense the depth of
frustration on the part of the member for Gaspé and many people
from his province of Quebec. I addressed that issue in my earlier
remarks when we were talking about the first grouping of
amendments.
It is past time the federal government got out of many areas that
it currently has jurisdiction in, or that it asserts it has jurisdiction
in, and allow the provinces and in some cases the municipal
governments to make decisions more in keeping with the desires of
the people who have to live with the results of those decisions.
We have a situation in British Columbia where the Government
of Canada is making a major decision with respect to the fishery
resource on the coast. It is a decision that only the people of British
Columbia will have to live with. That decision is to include an
aboriginal fishery component in land claims in British Columbia in
modern treaties.
That is something that politicians from Ontario, Quebec and
Nova Scotia will not have to live with but they are certainly very
much involved in the decision making process. I sense the
frustration of the member for Gaspé. As a citizen from British
Columbia and knowing the depth of feeling on that issue in British
Columbia, I understand the member's frustration.
However, in looking at the oceans act it is clear there are times
when there is a proper role for the federal government to play that
goes beyond municipal and provincial jurisdictions. In the case of
oceans it is clearly the responsibility of the federal government,
particularly when it comes to issues such as straddling stocks,
migratory wildlife and fish stocks. It has a role to play.
I do not see how it is possible for the provincial governments to
be making decisions with respect to those areas in the present
circumstances. The federal government has a very serious
obligation to consult with the provinces. It is federal decisions that
often cause provincial governments a great deal of pain,
particularly economic pain.
If members do not believe that, look at the groundfishery in
Newfoundland and the collapse of that. It was managed right into
the ground by the federal government. It created all kinds of
impetus for investment into the groundfishery by providing grants
and subsidies to fish packing plants and the construction of fishing
boats and encouraged everybody and their dog to get out their fish
those fish, and they did. Guess what? The fish are gone and guess
who is paying the bill? In part it is the province. The province ends
up with a great deal of the economic pain created as a result of
federal mismanagement. The provinces have a right to be
consulted.
I have some difficulty with the way these amendments are
worded. We will be again moving amendments to Motions Nos. 48
and 90.
I move:
That Motion No. 48 be amended by deleting the following: ``-the Provinces
and-'' and ``-may consult with others-''
I move:
That Motion No. 90 be amended by substituting the word ``requirements''
with the word ``guidelines''.
(1920)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bonin): The Chair will take the
amendments under advisement.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I commend you
for doing what you can to stand in for one of your colleagues at a
moment's notice. That is quite remarkable.
As far as the Oceans Act is concerned, some may wonder what
the hon. member for Lévis is doing in this debate, since the riding
of Lévis is far from the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Ocean and
even farther from the Pacific Ocean. However, according to the
legal definition, an ocean is any body of salt water. For the
information of my colleagues who appear surprised by this
definition, the St. Lawrence carries salt water as far as my riding.
As I was saying earlier about greater federal interference, about
the government's effort to extend its reach so it can regulate
everyone's life, I see its borrowing the definition of ocean as a body
of salt water as an attempt to extend its reach to my region under
the Quebec bridge.
This bill also covers the management of the coast guard, which,
as it happens, is very important in the St. Lawrence. As you may
well understand, we are concerned about the designation of
maritime areas. For this reason, I like the amendment put forward
by the hon. member for Gaspé, which deals with fishery resources.
What are fishery resources?
3604
I spoke on this issue in my riding. Today, again, before I
arrived here in Ottawa, someone told me: ``I do not have a great
deal of education, but it seems the government, the public
servants or those who draft the legislation purposely try to
confuse us with big words''. Take, for example, the French
expression ``ressources halieutiques'', as in halieutics, the art or
practice of fishing. This is not the word the person was
concerned about, but we must define it.
We, members of Parliament, have a duty to correctly inform the
population. So, what does ``ressources halieutiques'' mean? This
expression is more appropriate than marine protected areas,
because it refers to the live resource, that is the fish and any other
living species in the oceans, whether at the bottom or the surface.
Things like this should be specified when drafting legislation.
We are talking here about a large number of species. I did not
count them but, in the St. Lawrence River and in the gulf, people
still catch eels and sturgeons. The resources are becoming
increasingly rare, because they were not adequately protected in
Canadian waters located within in the 200 mile limit, since the
ocean contour is not always straight.
However, when the notion of ocean extends to the St. Lawrence
River, we have a duty to make these specifications. This is why I
fully support the amendments proposed by the hon. member for
Gaspé, who knows a lot about fisheries and oceans. He was born
and raised in a fishing community and, for three years now, he has
been active in the committees of our caucus. He constantly keeps
us informed, because we, urban dwellers, eat various species of
fish now and then.
(1925)
We are glad to get some once and a while, but we have to ensure
it is processed correctly. Also, a lot of people are involved in this
industry and some of them have received assistance from their
provincial governments.
I had the opportunity to work many years with the former
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Jean Garon. I went
along with him to the meetings he attended and I heard the
fishermen tell him how important the provincial government's
involvement in this industry is, since the federal government
cannot deal by itself with processing plants.
The provinces can play a key role in many areas, if they so wish.
The province of Quebec has tried to do so many, many times. It is
still playing a major role, because this is an important resource. I
remember when some of today's most popular resources, such as
crab for example, were not developed here. Crab was only exported
to Japan, to the delight of the Japanese people, but was not very
well known here. Nowadays, thanks to all the ad campaigns and the
special ways it is processed, Quebecers enjoy crab, too much
perhaps, because there are times we run short.
I was talking earlier about another one of our resources, eels.
This is a resource found in the St. Lawrence River, in what the bill
considers a marine protected area in fact, a resource not well
known to Canadians but a pure delight for Europeans, particularly
Germans who really enjoy this fish, a resource that we could
further develop.
These are all good reasons for the federal government to join
with the provinces, even if it has jurisdiction over the fisheries
pursuant to the Constitution, and create a partnership to further
develop our resources and let the provinces become some of its
partners in order to help the people who work in the fishing
industry.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am ready to render a
decision on the amendments put forward by the member for
Skeena. First:
That Motion No. 48 be amended by deleting the following: ``-the Provinces
and-'' and ``-may consult with others-''
Second:
That Motion No. 90 be amended by substituting the word ``requirements''
with the word ``guidelines''.
Both amendments are in order.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will be please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division
Motion No. 5 stands deferred. The recorded division will also
apply to Motions Nos. 22, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57 to 64, 72, 74, 75, 89,
90 and 91.
(1930)
[Translation]
We will now go on to Group No. 4, which includes Motions Nos.
7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 31.
3605
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ) proposed:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-26, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 18, on page 4, with
the following:
``limits of any area, whether or not it is part of the territory of a province,
other than the territorial sea''.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-26, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 7, with
the following:
``sources, where they are not contained within the territory of a province, are
vested in Her Majesty in right of''.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-26, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 7, with
the following:
``Canada or, where the seabed and the subsoil are adjacent to the seabed and
the subsoil of the territorial sea that is contiguous to the territory of the
province, to Her Majesty in right of a province.''
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-26, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 7, with
the following:
``Canada or Her Majesty in right of a province, depending on whether the
seabed and subsoil are included in the territory of the province.''
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-26, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 35, on page 8, with
the following:
``vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada or Her Majesty in right of a province,
depending on whether the continental shelf is included in the territory of the
province.''
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-26, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 35, on page 8, with
the following:
``vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada or, where the continental shelf is
adjacent to the seabed and the subsoil of the territorial sea that is contiguous to
the territory of the province, to Her Majesty in right of a province.''
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-26, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing line 2, on page 15, with
the following:
``apply, either directly or indirectly, in respect of lakes, rivers and their
estuaries.''
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, I exhort members to
reject Motions Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 31 standing in the
name of the hon. member for Gaspé. The purpose of these motions
is to undermine the Oceans Act, which, as written, is in strict
accordance with the codes and customs of international law.
[English]
Canada is a nation which has a long maritime history, one which
has ranged from quiet diplomacy in the development of
international agreements focused on the development of a
comprehensive framework for the regulation of all ocean spaces to
that of proactive action to protect straddling stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks.
The legislation being discussed constitutes a major element of
the overall strategy to intensify the Canadian government's efforts
toward the conservation, protection and sustainable development
of our oceans and their resources.
The first objective of Bill C-26 is to recognize in domestic law
Canada's rights and responsibilities as a coastal state as regards
maritime zones and to delimit the area over which Canada will
exercise its conservation and protection initiatives.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which
came into force on November 14, 1994 provides for the
delimitation and establishment of maritime zones under national
jurisdiction and identifies the rights of coastal states and of other
states within these maritime zones.
The oceans act implements those provisions of the United
Nations convention as regards the maritime zones. This is not the
legislation by which Canada will ratify the United Nations
convention. Members will recall that in the February speech from
the throne the government indicated its intention to table enabling
legislation allowing Canada to ratify the convention. This
legislation will be presented to Parliament at a later date.
The clauses which the Bloc Quebecois wishes to amend
recognize and delineate Canada's maritime zones seaward of the
internal waters of Canada as codified under the United Nations
convention, otherwise known as UNCLOS.
The amendments suggested by the Bloc in this group of motions
would change all of this, and I refer again to what I said about the
need for respect for juridical roles and missions. The Bloc
amendments would intentionally have Canada contravene this
international convention which we as a nation worked very hard to
see established.
Motion No. 7 as proposed is unnecessary and misleading. It
refers to clause 5 which describes how baselines are drawn in
accordance with UNCLOS. The motion indicates, if I may say so, a
confusion between the determination of internal domestic
boundaries with the determination of the international boundaries.
The concept of baselines is not used in international law or in
Bill C-26 to determine the internal boundaries of a nation. Rather
the baselines serve as reference lines from which the nation defines
its national maritime boundaries according to international law.
These amendments, as proposed, therefore, are misleading. They
do nothing to improve the bill, rather they detract from its clarity
and accuracy.
3606
Bloc Motions Nos. 11, 12 and 13 apply to Canada's exclusive
economic zone and seek to imply that this area and its seabed
could be contained in the territory of a province. The exclusive
economic zone is delineated to its inner margin by the outer edge
of the territorial sea and stretches out to 200 nautical miles from
the baseline or the coastline. By definition under international law,
the exclusive economic zone is well beyond provincial waters yet
the Bloc amendments would have us alter this important
legislation to suggest otherwise.
Bloc Motions Nos. 15 and 16 regarding the continental shelf
make the same erroneous implications, namely that the continental
shelf could be within the boundary of a province. The continental
shelf is well beyond provincial boundaries. To amend this bill as
proposed by the Bloc would make Canada's new ocean statute
contravene international law. This is neither proper nor legally
correct.
Motion No. 31 proposed by the Bloc seeks to alter clause 28
which defines the area of application of the oceans management
strategy and makes it clear that oceans are defined to include
estuary and coastal offshore waters. This clause, as it is, states that
part II of the act, the part entitled ``The Oceans Management
Strategy'' does not apply to lakes and rivers. This makes sense. An
ocean management strategy does apply to lakes and rivers.
(1935 )
The Bloc motion attempts to exclude application of a strategy to
estuaries. This does not make sense as the interface between the
fresh and saltwater estuaries form a significant component of ocean
ecosystems, as well as the social economic well-being of
Canadians. To include these areas in the ocean management
strategy would effectively ignore the principles of ecosystems
management set out in this act.
I therefore urge the members of this House to reject the motions
presented by the Bloc pertaining to the maritime zones of Canada
and to the oceans management strategy. To accept them would
contravene international law. It would also limit the effectiveness
of our efforts to conserve and protect the ocean ecosystems.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what needs to be
understood and what those opposite are having a hard time
understanding is that, although they tell us they want to include
such definitions in order to comply with international law, one of
the very first sentences of the bill provides that its aim is to permit
Canada to affirm its sovereignty over its waters. What I want to say
is that we can also affirm our sovereignty; we are sovereign in what
we want to do and say.
We can therefore, in keeping with the new convention on the law
of the sea, still act imaginatively. We can design this bill according
to the desires and needs of those involved and of the people who
make up Canada. I repeat: the provinces form Canada.
The problem I am trying to reflect in this bill is the greyness of
the powers, the jurisdictions and the definition of the maritime
territories in this bill. Right off in committee, I stated that I had
some concern about the government moving so quickly with this
sort of bill and I felt some questions were unresolved.
I keep coming back to the fact that the minister of fisheries at the
time, Mr. Tobin, had promised me the bill was not written to
mislead any province. It was to serve as a strategy toward a sort of
partnership. When you want to be somebody's partner you take the
time to listen to what they have to say and to respond to their
insecurities. The fact is that we will have to live with this bill we
are considering for a long time. More particularly, we will have to
work with the wording it contains.
If, as a Quebec representative on this today, I start off with
concerns, how can anyone believe there was good faith on the other
side? If, before signing the contract, I tell them I am having
difficulty with this or that clause, which needs clarification, and
they tell me it is not necessary, if it is unimportant in their eyes,
why not include it?
All, or nearly all, of the motions I submitted-I am not
interested in reading them all again for people's benefit, as there is
not enough time to do so-are for the purpose of clarifying that this
bill will not encroach upon existing rights, existing though not
perhaps claimed by the provinces. Why, then, is there such a rush to
do away with that, and to speak of the provinces as little as
possible? As we progress, every time we speak of a definition of
territory, I add ``provided nothing abrogates or derogates from the
rights, past or present, of the provinces''.
(1940)
I try to make it as clear as possible that we need total clarity on
this. Why is it that they keep taking us back to square one every
time, by saying ``No''? It reminds one of the principle of least
effort. They refuse to budge on certain points, and not minor points
either. Perhaps I am running out of words this evening. If we hold
this to be important, if there are concerns, what have they done to
alleviate those concerns? Nothing.
They say it is not important, that there is nothing to be feared. If
there is indeed nothing to be feared, let it be put in, let the
regulations be changed, let it be added. That would make things a
lot clearer afterward. Why do I also insist in Motion No. 31 that
this clause does not ``apply, either directly or indirectly, in respect
of lakes, rivers and their estuaries''? Because there are many of
them in our regions. Because we would like to have a say and
because Quebec's relations with the various stakeholders,
including municipalities and the environment ministry, are already
3607
complicated enough. So why should the federal government come
barging in with this bill? Why?
I have been told there is no reason to worry. That is no reason for
me to stop worrying and start telling myself that there is no risk,
that I should not get involved in this. We are clearly saying that this
bill should not apply to lakes, rivers and their estuaries. I am told it
would be frivolous to exclude estuaries. I do not disagree that the
first glass of water from the Saguenay River will flow past the
Gaspé region before reaching Nova Scotia and then Newfoundland.
I do not disagree it is a chain reaction. We are not saying we do
not want to co-operate with them. Every time we talk about
relations strategies, we indicate to them that, if they want things to
work, the partner, that is to say, the province or provinces
concerned, must be involved from the start. As soon as the minister
gets an idea, he shares it right away with his provincial counterpart.
Likewise, when a federal official gets an idea, he should be able to
contact his counterpart right away to see if there is a problem.
In such cases, both levels would share the problems, but for this
to happen, it must be clear and well understood that part of the
territory in question is ours and that this is the reason why we will
have joint responsibility and why management responsibilities will
be shared. I am realize that the Liberals are just trying to hog the
whole thing, basically telling us: ``Mover over, everything is under
control''. Not so fast, there are problems.
To our friend opposite, the parliamentary secretary to the
fisheries minister, who said in his preamble that the intent was to
modernize international law, I reply that the United States also read
the Convention of the Law of the Sea. Having read it, the U.S. still
saw fit to specify that, while they have sovereign rights over their
oceans, coastal states-that is to say U.S. coastal states-have a
responsibility. I think it is up to three miles off the coast.
How is the maritime territory shared with the provinces and the
provinces' responsibility recognized?
(1945)
I do not wish to start a dispute but I want to call the attention of
the hon. members opposite to the fact that the modern thing to do
may be to give management over to the provinces, as the U.S. have
been doing with member states for quite a while now. This way,
U.S. states deal with the big boss in Washington. If every power is
taken away right from the start, what is there left to talk about?
I say it again. In December, the government passed a motion
saying that Quebec was a distinct society and undertook to enshrine
it in the Constitution and to have it reflected in all other Canadian
legislation. Here is a chance to acknowledge Quebec's desire to
deal with its own problems and participate in the management
process with them, but they do not want us to.
Do not be surprised if you see me rise again and again this
evening, Mr. Speaker, because I have a lot to say on this subject and
I will keep talking until I get through to them. The night could be
long; they are quite hard-headed.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find myself once
again having to defer to the member for Gaspé. He has done a super
job on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. He makes
a valuable contribution to the committee.
After looking at the amendments that are proposed in this
grouping which are all his amendments, I have a great deal of
difficulty. It is clear that as the federal government, the central
government does have jurisdiction in Canada's waters. The
sovereignty of Canada rests with the federal government. The
provinces are way stations of that sovereignty but in the end that
sovereignty rests with the federal government.
In issues such as the law of the sea convention and other marine
issues which tend to be international in nature, it is proper that the
federal government have the jurisdiction and the ability to legislate
and to act in Canada's interests in these areas.
The Reform Party acknowledges the reasoning behind the
amendments. People in western Canada and Atlantic Canada feel
very much the same way in that the federal government is too
intrusive, too big and too powerful, it takes too much of our tax
dollars and is involved in far too many areas it should not be.
However, this is one area where the federal government has a
proper and legitimate role. Unfortunately therefore we will not be
able to support these amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is my
first opportunity to speak to Bill C-26, the Oceans Act. I must
admit however that I am a little disappointed. As you know, I
studied law at Laval University where, in the very first classes on
constitutional law, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was
quoted daily.
What a small world, given that, 20 years later, I am now sitting
across from the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra whom I always
admired and still admire for his rigour and the principles he
followed throughout his life. There is no doubt about that. I have
seen Supreme Court decisions quoting the hon. member. I recall
that Bora Laskin and Brian Dickson, two outstanding Supreme
court judges, highly respected the professor who now represents
the riding of Vancouver Quadra.
I meet him today, some 20 years later, and cannot help being
surprised to hear him advocate the exact opposite of what he used
3608
to espouse when he was a university professor. Politics is
demanding for all members, including the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra. I would have been very impressed if, once
again, he had been an exception, but such is not the case,
unfortunately. Even the strongest structures have limits, and I think
it is the case with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. This
said, I do respect him immensely and I hope he will not be
offended.
(1950)
However, when the hon. member for Gaspé presented what I
would call a neo-constitutional approach to the bill, to the
legislative agenda before us, I recognized that, as the Reform
member said and as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is
saying, navigation, fisheries and oceans are under federal
jurisdiction. In 1867, the Fathers of Confederation cared about
navigation, about protecting fishery and marine resources, about
safety, international transport and marine transport. It is probably
true that they decided to give the federal government responsibility
over this aspect of Canadian geography.
However, the provinces never-and the member for Vancouver
Quadra can say so if he does not agree-considered renouncing
their historical presence on that portion of the oceans and seas that
was adjacent to or, as in Quebec's case, inside their territory.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is aware of that. For
example, Walker's flotilla ran aground at Pointe-aux-Anglais, on
Quebec's north shore. This is part of our historical heritage and we,
Quebecers, respect it. Every year, thousands of divers come to
explore these relics at Pointe-aux-Anglais.
When they decided to give the federal government responsibility
over navigation, safety, etc., the Fathers of Confederation did not
have in mind shipwrecks at the bottom of the ocean. The view
expressed by the hon. member for Gaspé is that, yes, federal
jurisdiction can be maintained. However, in our modern era it
might be appropriate to follow the American example and to resort
to joint action in this area. Indeed, there could be shared
jurisdiction over the seabed and marine subsoil or, at least, some
consultations.
From now on, with Bill C-26, the federal government will act
unilaterally. Everything will be ploughed under, weeds and grain
alike. That is what the hon. member for Gaspé is saying. We might
as well scrap everything, put aside the infamous constitutional
quarrel of 1991-92, civil law in Quebec, navigation and fisheries
coming under the federal government. In light of the distinct
society resolution that was passed just before the holidays, we
should review the most ambiguous areas, where the general
interpretation of the Constitution gives rise to some speculation.
Since the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is more
knowledgeable than I am in this field, he will recognize that in
some cases past decisions led to quite ridiculous situations. For
example, when it was determined, in 1906, that Montreal trolleys
were to be considered a work for the general benefit of Canada, I
think the decision was wrong. That is not what the Fathers of
Confederation had in mind when they established that works for the
general benefit of Canada were to come under federal jurisdiction.
When dealing, for example, with the content of television
programming, they started by talking about the vehicle, the
broadcasting method, towers, wires. All that was linked to
telegraphy to finally conclude one day that television, radio,
whatever, was an area of federal jurisdiction.
(1955)
One thing lead to another, but it was always in favour of the
federal government, which made Maurice Duplessis coin his
famous line to the effect that ``the Supreme Court of Canada is like
the tower of Pisa: it always leans toward the same side''.
The time may have come for parliamentarians, cabinet ministers
and the powers that be to try to restore some balance by giving the
provinces, if not an absolute decision making power, at least a say
in the development of joint policies. In other words, the
government should respect and recognize the existence of the
provinces, and vice versa.
But politicians here refuse to do so. This is what is upsetting, and
not only for Quebecers, because I imagine British Columbians also
wonder about all this. This is not a linguistic or historical issue. We
are talking about the management of resources, in this case the
oceans, the seas, the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic. We are
talking about partnership.
This is a perfect occasion for the government to show that it
really means what is says when it makes nice promises and
speeches. The government tells us we will get along and discuss
things together. Well, now is the time to do so. It may already too
late this fall. If what we hear from all sides is true, the government
will have missed its last chance to meet the wish of its provincial
partners. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra should try to
influence his government and make it use common sense once and
for all. I know you do have a lot of common sense.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I did not
want to take part in this debate but so much talk of good horse
sense by my colleagues finally caught my attention and influenced
me.
This is totally contradictory. A few months ago, there was a
referendum in Quebec and a few days before that referendum, we
saw the Prime Minister stand up, as another Prime minister had
done before the 1980 referendum, and promise with his hand on his
heart that yes, the Canadian federation would be changed to take
the interests and demands of the people of Quebec into account,
3609
but, poof!-as the Prime Minister would say-today all that has
vanished.
In this debate, government members are telling us that they
cannot do otherwise than what they are about to do because the
Constitution and the British North America Act must be respected.
How nicely put. How is it that respecting the Constitution has
suddenly become such an absolute and inescapable criterion? What
have the successive Conservative and Liberal governments done
since 1867? We had time to observe them.
What have they all done since then? With their spending powers,
they have intruded on areas of provincial jurisdiction under the
Constitution. And, as my colleague from Gaspé put it, they have
encroached on these provincial jurisdictions. At the time, the
Constitution was not that important. What was important was the
spending power.
But when the members from the Bloc Quebecois make claims in
the name of good horse sense and talk about the Quebec's will to
take its rightful place and exert some influence on lawmaking in
this country, the only important thing is the Constitution.
(2000)
Not too long ago, some time after the referendum debate, there
was a speech from the throne. What did it say? It said that the
federal government would no longer interfere in areas under
provincial jurisdiction. I agree that this is an area under federal
jurisdiction, but we could have thought that, following the speech
from the throne, there would be a willingness to change the federal
system.
It is obvious, as my colleague from Trois-Rivières mentioned
earlier, that this willingness does not exist. There is no willingness
to make changes. It seems that, in this country, federalist members,
federalist politicians are unable to learn from the past, even from
the recent past. We are constantly sending them messages, but to no
avail. Here is another opportunity that the government is preparing
to miss.
It would be a chance for the Liberals to prove that they can
adjust, that they can transform the Canadian federation, as the
prime minister likes to say. However, they are unable to do so
because they have a different vision of this country. They have a
vision where the government that has the most powers has to be in
Ottawa and where the other governments, the provincial
governments, have partial jurisdiction over matters of little
importance.
The same thing happens each time we have a significant bill
before us: the rhetoric is there, but the government does not deliver
the goods.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak to Bill C-26, and particularly to Motion No. 7. This bill does
not mention participation by the provinces. We know that the
oceans are a vast natural resource over which the Government of
Quebec would do well to have a say.
In the past, we saw a fairly obvious inequity concerning fishing
rights, for example. We also saw a fairly obvious inequity when the
federal government decided unilaterally to develop petroleum
resources through the great Hibernia project. Without the consent
of Quebec, it was decided to develop the petroleum near
Newfoundland, by saying that this would help Newfoundland, that
this was a project to develop the eastern regions.
We in Quebec were flatly opposed, because we knew in advance
that Hibernia would be a project with almost no benefits for
Quebec. Quebec would certainly have refused to subsidize the big
Hibernia project. We know full well that Hibernia will cost
Quebecers the pretty sum of two or three billion dollars, while the
benefits will certainly not exceed a few hundred million. And
Quebec was not consulted about this project.
Once again, I would like to say that I support the motion by my
colleague, the member for Gaspé, who is asking that the provinces
be given a right of review, that they at least be informed of what is
ahead. At the present time, we have no information. The federal
government, as usual, is charging in and deciding unilaterally to get
involved in large projects without consulting the provinces. Quebec
is often penalized by these federal projects. There is no warning.
(2005)
I remember very clearly, I was here in the House when they
decided to launch the Hibernia project. I was an independent at that
time, we were a small group of eight independents. We learned on
the Friday morning that the Liberals, the Conservatives, and the
NDP, a large contingent at that time, had decided unilaterally to
introduce the bill on a Friday morning on the sly, to avoid
discussion.
Now, myself and my colleague for Richelieu learned about it on
the Friday morning and came to the House to contest it, knowing
full well that it was contrary to Quebec's interests. We were the
only party-not even a party-but as you know, when there are
major regional projects involved that are favoured by the federal
government, things are too easy. The big three national parties
always join forces and the thing is slipped through quietly. And
who gets it in the neck? The provinces.
Here I am not speaking just for Quebec. I think that British
Columbia, with its extensive coastline, ought also to have been
entitled to be consulted and informed, at least before the federal
government acts in the key areas affecting the oceans. As I have
already said, the oceans are a repository of great wealth, and the
provinces absolutely must be consulted to ensure that they may
take part in various ways to ensure that we agree, or in a few cases
3610
at least refuse, to become involved in projects when we know they
will never be to our advantage.
When we as Quebecers talk of fairness, we are not asking for
charity, just fairness. We are not looking for handouts, we want to
participate and to benefit, like good citizens, to have our fair share.
It is not right for Quebec, one of the most industrialized provinces
in Canada, to have the highest rate of unemployment and welfare,
at the moment. That should not be.
It is happening today because something was not working in the
federal system. We are not talking about handouts, just fairness.
We are talking about being part of the major projects so that we
may benefit from them, no more than any other province, but at
least as much as the other provinces.
The ultimate proof lies always in the results. They are the
indicator of success or failure. If we in Quebec have more welfare
and unemployment than the other provinces, except the small
maritime provinces, it is because we have lost out in a way, and not
in terms of handouts. We are not expecting handouts or charity. We
simply want to be part of the major projects that are to our
advantage and benefit properly from them and not to be part of
those to our disadvantage, as much as possible. This is why I rise to
inform Quebecers that the federal government is yet again trying to
pull the wool over our eyes by excluding Quebec from the debate
on regulating the oceans.
Once again, I repeat, this is not nothing. The oceans contain
extraordinary riches, and Quebec must absolutely have a say in the
decisions.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): A recorded division on the
Motion No. 7 stands deferred.
(2010)
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No 11. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger: All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): A recorded division on the
motion stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 12.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on
Motion No. 12 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay
3611
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on
Motion No. 15 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 31. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed to the
motion will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on
Motion No. 31 stands deferred.
We will now proceed to group No. 5, Motions Nos. 8, 9, 14, 17 to
21, 23, 32, 33, 34 and 35.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-26, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 4, with
the following:
``derogates from any legal right or interest of the provinces or any legal right or
interest held''.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-26, in Clause 9, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 24, on page 5.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-26, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 7, with
the following:
``derogates from any legal right or interest of the provinces or any legal right or
interest held''.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-26, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 8, with
the following:
``derogates from any legal right or interest of the provinces or any legal right or
interest held''.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-26, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 39, on page 8, with
the following:
``20. (1) Outside provincial boundaries, with respect for the rights of the
provinces and subject to any regulations made''.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-26, in Clause 21, be amended by deleting lines 5 to 12, on page
10.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-26, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 11, with
the following:
``23. (1) Subject to sub-section (4), in any legal or other proceedings, a''.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-26, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 11,
with the following:
``(2) Subject to subsection (4), in any legal or other proceedings, a''.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-26, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 38, on page 11,
the following:
``(4) The certificate referred to in this section is not proof of the truth of the
statement contained in it where the effect of the statement is to abrogate or
derogate from the existing rights or legislative jurisdiction of a province.''
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-26, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 15, on page
15, with the following:
``29. The Minister, in concert with the provincial governments and in
collaboration with interested per-sons and bodies and with other ministers,
boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, shall lead and facilitate, with
respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, the
development and implementation of a national strategy for the management of
marine eco-systems in waters that form part of Canada or in which Her Majesty
the Queen in right of Canada has sovereign rights under international law.''
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-26, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 42, on page
15, with the following:
``31. The Minister, in concert with the provincial governments and in
collaboration with interested per-sons and bodies and with other ministers,
boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, shall lead and facilitate, with
respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, the
development and implementation of plans for the integrated management of
activities in marine waters that form part of Canada or in which Her Majesty the
Queen in right of Canada has sovereign rights under international law.''
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-26, in Clause 29, be amended in the French version by replacing
lines 4 to 10, on page 15, with the following:
``d'autres ministres et organismes fédéraux, les gouvernements provinciaux et
territoriaux et les organisations autochtones, les collectivités côtières et les
autres personnes de droit public et de droit privé intéressées, y compris celles
constituées dans le cadre d'accords sur des revendications territoriales, dirige
et favorise l'élaboration et la mise en''.
3612
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-26, in Clause 31, be amended in the French version by replacing
lines 31 to 37, on page 15, with the following:
``d'autres ministres et organismes fédéraux, les gouvernements provinciaux
et territoriaux et les organisations autochtones, les collectivités côtières et les
autres personnes de droit public et de droit privé intéressées, y compris celles
constituées dans le cadre d'accords sur des revendications territoriales, dirige
et favorise l'élaboration et la mise en''.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the
Canada oceans act and the number of amendments that have been
proposed to the act.
I have to recur to the point I made earlier but with perhaps more
precision. I have said it is not the appropriate role or mission for the
House to assay constitutional amendments whether by the director
or by the processes now being developed in intergovernmental
relations and between federal and provincial ministers. This is an
act which is devoted to Canada's oceans, and its integrity should be
respected in that sense with proper criteria relevance applied to it.
The clauses the Bloc Quebecois wishes to amend in this act
relate to Canada's rights and jurisdictions over its territorial sea,
the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the
continental shelf as codified under the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea.
(2015 )
These amendments are based on the misconception that this act
could impact on existing provincial rights and boundaries. It is
certainly not competent for ordinary legislation of this House to
change the constitutional division of powers. There are other
arenas and other processes in which that could be carried out if that
were the will of the country.
I will not take up House time by enumerating our rights and
responsibilities in each of Canada's maritime zones as declared by
Bill C-26. However let me point out there are elements of the act,
including the declaration and recognition of our rights in all of the
maritime zones mentioned, which are in full agreement with
international codes and practice.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to amend the oceans act in such a
way as to suggest that provinces could have rights and jurisdiction
in the maritime zones of Canada. Under international law however
these are clearly assigned to the coastal state, that is, Canada. There
is nothing to prevent efforts being made to promote constitutional
change by direct amendment or otherwise but that is for another
arena, another time and another place. It certainly would be a
distortion of this act to try to incorporate suggested changes of that
nature into it.
Bloc Motions Nos. 8 and 9 suggest that the provinces have rights
seaward of the base lines. The concept of base lines is not used in
international law or in Bill C-26 to determine the internal
boundaries of a nation; rather the base lines serve as reference lines
from which the nation defines its national maritime boundaries
according to international law.
Under international law, rights in waters seaward of the base
lines are vested in the coastal state. Canada as a nation holds title of
sovereignty over the waters within its base lines and within its
territorial sea. These waters are part and parcel of the territory of
Canada. Furthermore, contrary to what is implied by Bloc Motions
Nos. 8 and 9, Canada holds property rights below waters that are
not within provincial boundaries.
Bloc Motion No. 14 applies to Canada's exclusive economic
zone. It seeks to imply that there are or could be sovereign
provincial rights in the exclusive economic zone. However under
international law the exclusive economic zone is vested in Canada.
For these purposes it is located well beyond provincial waters.
International law as codified by the United Nations convention
assigns to the coastal state Canada rights and responsibilities
within the exclusive economic zone and these rights are vested in
the state, in Canada, and not in the provinces.
Bloc Motions Nos. 17, 18 and 19 regarding the continental shelf
in legal terms make the same erroneous implications, namely, that
the continental shelf could be within the boundary of a province
and that rights in this area could be exercised by a province. Once
again I would refer hon. members opposite to article 77 of the
United Nations convention. It clearly states that the coastal state
Canada has sovereign rights for exploration and exploitation of the
continental shelf, its non-living resources on its seabed and subsoil
and of its living sedentary species. Under the international law and
the convention these rights are vested not in the provinces but in
the coastal state.
I therefore urge members of the House to reject Bloc Motions
Nos. 8, 9, 14, 17, 18 and 19 pertaining to the maritime zones of
Canada. To endorse them would be to destroy Canada's
international credibility, to contravene international law and to
destroy the work of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans.
Bloc Motions Nos. 20, 21 and 23 refer to clause 23 of the oceans
act which deals with the issuance of certificates of geographic
location by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and by the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans. These certificates are court documents
issued by or under the authority of the minister which contain a
statement that a geographic location specified in the certificate is
located in a specific area.
In the case of the certificates issued by the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, the certificate would assert that a specific geographic
location is within a specified maritime zone, that is the internal
waters, territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic
zone or the continental shelf. In the case of the certificate issued by
3613
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the certificate would assert
that the location prescribed is within an area of a maritime zone
where a specified provincial law may have been extended. Once
again these certificates focus on the geographic position of the site
in question. They make no statement about the authority exercised
there.
(2020)
Strong legislation is made on a solid foundation. Basic tools
such as these certificates are required to enable the courts of the
land to efficiently conduct their business.
It is clear that the nature of the certificates provided under clause
23 of the oceans act has not been understood by some hon.
members. Through amendments proposed in Motions Nos. 20, 21
and 23, the Bloc suggests that the federal government might,
through the certificates issued by either the Minister of Foreign
Affairs or those issued by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
impinge on provincial rights or legislative jurisdiction. The
certificates provided for in this act do not deal with legislative
jurisdiction. They deal with geographic locations, degrees of
latitude and longitude. Constitutionally, they could not go beyond
that.
It has been mentioned before, but I will mention it again.
Provincial boundaries and provincial claims are constitutional
matters which cannot and will not be unilaterally amended by
legislation and administrative action such as the issuance of these
certificates.
I therefore ask all members of the House to reject these motions
presented by the Bloc which, if accepted, would make Canada's
new oceans statute contravene international law.
On another issue, Bloc Motion No. 32 of this grouping, there is a
proposal to have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the
provinces take the leadership role in developing the oceans
management strategy, while Motion No. 34 proposed to have the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the provinces take the
leadership role in developing integrated management plans.
Canadians have asked that there be one leader, not ten. Such a
proposal would leave us where we are today with a maze of
legislation and responsibilities but with no one person responsible
for getting all the players to work together.
It is not as though the provinces will be ignored in this process.
The minister is committed to collaboration with the provinces,
territories, aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and
many other stakeholders. This commitment permeates the whole
bill. The minister's leadership role must be preserved. For that
reason alone, Motions Nos. 32 and 34 must be rejected.
To further strengthen the language of the act, I propose in
Motions Nos. 33 and 35 that the French text of clause 29 be
amended to be consistent with the English text in order to clarify
and remove redundancies and make the bill consistent with the
wording used in the Constitution and other legislation.
In addition, during the standing committee's examination of the
bill, concern was expressed by the hon. member for Gaspé with the
use of the term ``communautés côtières''. This term has been
changed to ``collectivités côtières'' to address the concerns
expressed by the hon. member.
I therefore urge members of this House to accept the
government's technical amendments in Motions Nos. 33 and 35, to
reject Motions Nos. 8, 9, 14, 17, 18 and 19 in which the Bloc seeks
to alter provincial boundaries, and also Motions Nos. 20, 21 and 23
which are based on erroneous assumptions that the federal
government is seeking to alter federal-provincial jurisdiction and
provincial boundaries. This is not its intent and it could not do so in
this legislation.
Bloc Motions Nos. 32 and 34 should also be rejected to allow the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to assume the leadership role
which Canadians have clearly requested.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
second time tonight I must express disagreement with the idol of
my youth. He should not see it as a personal attack, far from it.
When the member for Vancouver Quadra tells us that the House
of Commons is not the place to debate the Constitution, I have
difficulty with that. I know, as he does, that traditionally,
constitutional debates are held in the Chateau Laurier, and that real
changes are made at night, between midnight and 6 a.m. This is
where the 1982 Constitution was hatched, and René Lévesque was
tricked, during what has been known since then as the night of the
long knives. I know all this, the member for Vancouver Quadra is
not telling me anything new. I am aware of this.
Except that, what were we doing here before Christmas, when
we voted on the distinct society motion? What were doing and what
was the government doing, the government of the member for
Saint-Maurice, the little guy from Shawinigan who said during the
referendum campaign that we could have administrative
agreements? The leader of the official opposition in Quebec is
building his career on administrative agreements. If they do not
emanate from this Parliament, where are they coming from then?
(2025)
I do not agree when they say that the House of Commons must
not be the place where we do indirectly what cannot be done
directly. I must remind the member for Vancouver Quadra that the
few times we did act directly it would have been better for us to act
indirectly, because the results were nothing to brag about. The
member must not forget that the Quebec premier has not yet signed
3614
the 1982 Constitution and the Quebec National Assembly has not
ratified it.
I agree that fisheries, oceans, navigation, security and overview
of marine areas come under federal jurisdiction so to speak. It is
true and we do not deny it, the member is right. But, I am making a
suggestion because, really, I am not convinced this is the way it
should be.
Yesterday, I listened to the Prime Minister on the French
network of the CBC; he was on the program Le Point. He was ready
to do indirectly what the member just blamed us for trying to do.
He was willing to conclude administrative agreements and to
discuss these things here in the House. He was ready to accept
anything yesterday. Before the cameras, the Prime Minister is
always ready to accept anything and everything.
An hon. member: He is always ready to muddle an issue.
Mr. Lebel: He muddles so well that he just drowns himself in
rhetoric.
In the Liberal Party's red book, they mentioned decentralization
and administrative agreements. That is what we are talking about
here. This area comes under federal jurisdiction, so now is the time
to conclude administrative agreements with the provinces. You are
good at making administrative agreements when you want to
intrude in provincial jurisdictions, so let us try to reverse the trend
and make administrative agreements in your jurisdictions. It is not
so funny, this is not the place to do it. We cannot do that here. You
cannot not do indirectly what you cannot do directly.
You were talking about economic rights-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I hesitate to
interrupt the hon. member, but I remind the House that any
intervention must be made through the Speaker, and not directly to
our colleagues from one side of the House to the other, whether
they be old colleagues, students, professors or what have you.
Mr. Lebel: So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot even do directly what I
cannot do indirectly; this is complicated. As for integration, I will
quote something that was written recently. There are two types of
integration to provide for in a political entity if we want to
guarantee its stability and coherence: economy and politics.
Economic integration implies that all aspects of the economic
activity can be pursued within the entity, without tariff constraints
or other trade barriers, and that there is considerable economic
interaction within the whole area.
So, when we talk about the economic entity that we must have to
stand up politically, here it is: relations with fishermen, those who
operate in the area, who manage the area and, most of all, who
make a living from the area since they are the ones most directly
concerned. That is the first aspect, economic integration. Through
you, Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra
he does not want to consider this.
One must also consider political integration, which means that
the people in the political entity share many values and beliefs and
identify with the political institutions, laws and government
policies through which these values are expressed. The people
living off fishery resources are told not to get involved in this, that
it is none of their business. In fact, they are told to go back to their
boats and fish as much as they want. They should not be concerned
about whether or not there are any fish left, about whether or not
our oceans are being restocked. The water and the sea belong to us,
but you must still register your boats.
Can you understand that these people are dependent on your
policies? They will have to live with your policies. For some, it will
be a tragedy. I am convinced that the exhaustion of underwater
fishery resources will probably lead to tragedy, but they should at
least have an opportunity to express their views and to be heard.
(2030)
We were talking about fishery resources. According to some
studies, if seals and sea lions had been eliminated from the St.
Lawrence estuary, fish stocks might not be as low as they now are.
When they said so 20 years ago, no one listened to them.
Politicians were above all this; they argued that the problem lay
elsewhere.
We now see that the level of fish stocks and other resources in
the ocean is only about 5 per cent of what it was in 1974. Before we
lose forever this remaining 5 per cent, the federal government
should wise up and start consulting the provinces as well as the
fishermen and other people concerned. But they prefer not to do so
directly. Forget about the Constitution.
What are we doing here, Mr. Speaker? I wonder. I simply want to
tell the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that I also wonder what
he is doing here. We must talk about the Constitution. If they do not
want to take direct action, fine, but they should still proceed
indirectly so that the goal is achieved. As Balzac said, the bottle
does not matter as much as the drunkenness. To the hon. member
for Vancouver Quadra, I say I will not take offence at the means
used, as long as the goal is achieved. That is all I ask.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, again we hear
from the member of the Bloc the deep concern that people have for
the intrusion of the federal government into areas where it does not
belong.
In looking through the motions and the groupings it is clear that
Motions Nos. 33 and 35 have to do with housekeeping.
3615
Bloc Motions Nos. 8, 14 and 17 have to do with the
safeguarding of the legal rights of provinces. At this time Reform
is favourably disposed to these motions. We have not heard
anything that would lead us to believe there is anything in these
amendments that could create concern for the federal government.
Motions Nos. 32 and 34 give the provinces a higher priority in
the consultative process which we think is progressive.
However, Motions Nos. 9, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23 unfortunately
deal with jurisdiction. The federal government properly has the
right and the responsibility as the sovereign government of the land
to exercise jurisdiction over Canada's marine waters. There are too
many issues concerning Canada's marine waters such as
international agreements on migratory wildlife and fish that do not
recognize provincial borders and do not recognize international
borders. It is only the federal government that can properly oversee
the management of Canada's marine areas.
Reform will be supporting Motions Nos. 33 and 35. We are
favourably disposed toward Motions Nos. 8, 14, 17, 32 and 34, and
we will be voting against Motions Nos. 9, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it
is comforting to see the interest all my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois take in the consideration of this bill at report stage. I
thank the hon. member for Chambly for the kind remarks he made
earlier.
To come back to my horses, so to speak, Mr. Speaker; horses are
normally on land, but the white froth on the crest of waves is also
called horses.
(2035)
What we must understand here this evening about GroupNo. 5-and I like the expression my hon. colleague from Chambly
used earlier when he talked about neo-constitutional relations-is
that we are doing our very best to come to an agreement with the
people opposite. That is what is commonly called creating a
partnership. We are even doing so at the instigation of former
fisheries minister Brian Tobin, who told me: ``Yvan, we want to be
your partners. We want to establish a partnership''. When you want
to establish a partnership, you sit down with your partner and start
making comparisons and agreeing on definitions. This is the very
foundation of any partnership: the equality of partners.
To do so, we need to be able to talk and to establish clear
premises from the start. When I was preparing these motions, I
never thought the debate was going to develop this way. I must
admit that I tried to get the idea across during our committee work.
I did not jump on people with my idea, but when people come and
tell me: ``We do want to have partnership with you and make
headway'', I take that opportunity to check how sound things are.
That is how the kind of motions before you today came about.
I could perhaps share or read a few, if I may. They deal with
simple things. I am on Motions Nos. 8 and 9. Motion No. 8 deals
with clause 8, defining rights. I am simply adding the words
``derogates from any legal right or interest of the provinces or any
legal right or interest held before February 4'', to include the notion
of province. It does not hurt anyone. Why should the government
be ashamed of mentioning in the legislation that the provinces are
its main partners? This is an example.
I will read clause 9. It is very eloquent. Subclause 9(5) mentions
establishing a partnership; this is the provision I would like to see
withdrawn-I realize this is boring for those who are listening to us
at home, but I too would rather be doing something else. Put
simply, the word ``Limitation'' appears in the margin, on the left
side of subclause 9(5). This provision contains a limitation.
Here is what subclause 9(5) says. It reads:
For greater certainty, this section shall not be interpreted as providing a basis
for any claim, by or on behalf of a province, in respect of any interest in or
legislative jurisdiction over any area of the sea in which a law of a province
applies under this section or the living or non-living resources of that area-
What does this mean? We are told that a claim cannot be made.
A limitation is imposed. This is a bad way to start a partnership. I
do not pretend to be a constitutional expert. I may not have as much
legal expertise as does the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra or
the hon. member for Chambly. However, I am an administrator by
training and when you start with restrictions, it is a bad sign.
The same goes for Motion No. 14-we can go into details this
evening, since we have time to do so. I specifically use the word
``provinces'' in the motion. Again, it is for a simple reason. Why is
the government afraid of naming one of its main partners?
I will get to motions that are even more interesting. MotionNo. 23 seeks to add a fourth paragraph to clause 23. Earlier, in
reference to certificates, the member for Vancouver Quadra said
that, as regards Canadian sovereignty and international law, this is
not quite the way to proceed. The member for Vancouver Quadra
does not have to convince the whole world. He must convince the
partners, that is the provinces, and the members who are here in
this House.
(2040)
I would like clause 23 to be amended by adding a fourth
paragraph which would read:
3616
``(4) The certificate referred to in this section is not proof of the truth of the
statement contained in it where the effect of the statement is to abrogate or
derogate from the existing rights or legislative jurisdiction of a province''.
We might be told that what is indicated in clause 23 does not
come under provincial jurisdiction, or what have you, but it would
not hurt to include it in the bill, so as to stress the notion of
partnership. One would say to the other: ``Listen, if you accept it
like that, I am prepared to live with clause 4, because I will not lose
anything, and if it suits you, great, so much the better''. But no. It
cannot work like that.
I move on to Motion No. 32 right away. I will read it carefully,
slowing down at the important words and comparing it at the same
time. It refers to clause 29. This may be an academic exercise. In
any case, I think it could be instructive for those listening at home,
and even for certain members who did not have the chance to look
through the whole bill.
As written, the clause reads as follows:
``29. The minister, in collaboration with other ministers, boards, and
agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial-''
I note that the provincial governments are not quite last, but
come after relations with other ministers, boards and agencies of
the Government of Canada, in collaboration of course.
What I would like to see, and I mention it in the motion, because
the provincial partners will have to make it work, because Canada
is made up of provinces, I would rather see the following:
``29. The Minister, in concert with the provincial governments-''
So there is an direct link right off the bat. As soon as you read it,
it is clear: the main partners are the provinces and agreement must
be with them. This is followed by ``in collaboration with other
ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada'', and
then ``interested persons and bodies''. But it is the minister, in
concert with the provincial governments, who is going to ``lead and
facilitate, with respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of
the provinces-it does not hurt to mention it-the development and
implementation of a national strategy''.
In other words, putting things in the right order from the start
simplifies things later. It is not because I am a sovereignist that I
would put the words in this order. I told you earlier that my second
defect is to be an administrator by training. I therefore like to be
able to identify the other players from the outset so as to be able to
determine what our relations with them will be. I have said ``in
concert''. What is done in concert? To lead and develop the
implementation of a strategy. Now that is clear. But let us not begin
with a list that, when the clause is read by more experienced jurists,
such as there might be in this House, waters down the purpose of
this motion.
If you try to do that, you risk serious problems, since this act will
be implemented to resolve problems. So there must be an effort,
from the outset, to avoid creating problems so that the relations are
very clear.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): I have been listening to the
words of the member for Vancouver Quadra. Although rigorously
legal, his interpretation is that all of the proposed amendments
suggested by the hon. member for Gaspé and supported by myself
are constitutional amendments and thus there is nothing that can be
done. This is not the proper tribunal for discussing it. We are not,
therefore, the right ones to discuss it, for we are in the federal
Parliament and here we must speak of laws and not constitutions.
I find that most curious. We have looked at laws here, and I have
sat on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
I recall the famous debate on occupational training.
(2045)
That was an area of provincial jurisdiction, and yet in Bill C-96,
the act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development, the minister awarded himself powers in this area, by
making official those powers he had long recognized as his, having
long interfered in that area.
During another session, Bill C-28 dealt with financial assistance
to students, another area of provincial jurisdiction, education,
under the Constitution. Through legislation, the minister made
legal his intruding in this area.
I have been a member of the health committee for some weeks,
where there was a bill to make the existence of Health Canada
official, reinforcing and clarifying its role. It already existed under
another name, but now it is really called the Department of Health.
An act has been passed to that end, clarifying the powers of the
minister, yet health is a provincial jurisdiction.
At that time, the types of things that have been said just now
were not being said, for it was OK, it was for the well-being of all
Canadians. Each time there is federal intrusion, it is for the good of
the people. I have been interested in politics for a long time, and I
can remember Réal Caouette's time here. He used to say: ``The
government has your good at heart, and it will manage to get its
hands on your goods as well''. I say he was absolutely right.
There are areas which are not in the Constitution: culture, the
environment, communications, to name but a few. Since it is not
written down, not specified, when we get into a grey area, we know
that the Supreme Court will be called upon to decide and will
always say that if not set out otherwise, it is a federal area of
jurisdiction.
3617
Without going over every recent event, the Prime Minister
recently stated, repeating it last night again on Le Point, that he
wants a partnership, and what the hon. member for Gaspé is
proposing is precisely the possibility of entering into partnerships,
reaching agreement, collaborating with the provinces. Why?
Because the Constitution was written in 1867, and things have
changed for it, as they have for the catechism.
I will soon be 50 years old, so I am entitled to that analogy.
When we were in primary school, we read the catechism. There
were questions and answers, and we said: ``That is the way it is''. I
was prepared to believe that things did not change. Today, however,
perhaps it depends on religion, but sins are not what they used to
be. Things have changed. You do not even have to confess to a
priest any more. It is changing. Society is changing, but Canada's
Constitution is immutable. It cannot be changed.
Recently we were told that, since there was no provision for a
province's sovereignty, it was out of the question. They try to
convince us that it is immutable and that if it is not provided for it
is out of the question. If we listen-I was going to say
religiously-to the member for Vancouver Quadra, nothing can be
changed. Nothing whatsoever can be changed.
The question is about the impossibility of changing anything, not
a comma of what the opposition suggests. I remember-I have
been here for three years. When we manage to get a minor
amendment on a minuscule word, it is a real victory, because
traditionally with this system proposals from the opposition are not
accepted. The party in power runs the show. We see it on the sheet
we have. If it is a Liberal government proposal, it is good; if it
comes from the opposition, it is not.
(2050)
The people listening to us must be saying: ``What is all this?''
What does it all mean. It must be changed. Opposition speeches are
intended to try to convince the members opposite that, yes, in
theory things can be changed. We said: ``We are indeed
sovereignists, but it is because the system is immutable, there was
never any desire to change it''.
So those who must prove us wrong must prove that it is
amendable, that there is room for improvement and that the
opposition has valid things to say. The fact that it is logical ought to
be enough. No. There is the party line, and that is the end of that.
If you do not do that, you are saying, like the member for
Vancouver Quadra, that the Constitution does not permit that.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, tonight we are talking about things which
we should really not be talking about, and I appreciate your
extraordinary tolerance, allowing us to talk about something the
member for Vancouver Quadra thinks we should not be talking
about. But curiously enough, the Chair and its advisors ruled our
amendments, the amendments moved by the member for Gaspé, to
be in order, which means that they can be debated and voted on.
The member for Vancouver Quadra says: ``It might be in order,
we can discuss it, but in any case, it will lead nowhere, the
Constitution does not permit changes''. This is a strange situation,
and since we cannot make further changes, I will spare my voice,
but I find this rather bizarre legally speaking. This is quite a lesson
in democracy for the young people who are listening to us. Efforts
made to get people interested in politics are all for naught when the
answer is: ``This is not in the constitutional catechism, and when its
is not in the constitutional catechism, there is no salvation''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on the
proposed motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also
apply to Motions Nos. 14 and 17.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
3618
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on
Motion No. 9 stands deferred. The recorded division will also
apply to Motion No. 19.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could ask the House
for unanimous consent that the recorded divisions for all the
motions in group No. 5 be deemed to have been requested and you
could defer them all at once for a vote at the deferral time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on on
Motion No. 18. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on
Motion No. 18 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 20. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on
Motion No. 20 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 21. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on
Motion No. 21 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on
Motion No. 23 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 32. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on
Motion No. 32 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 33. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
3619
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on
Motion No. 33 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 34. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on
Motion No. 34 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 35. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on
Motion No. 35 stands deferred.
(2055 )
Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 24 to 27, 39 and 66.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-26, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 12, with
the following:
``25. The Governor in Council may, in consultation with the standing
committee and the provincial governments, on the''.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-26, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 12, with
the following:
``Affairs, after consultation with the provinces affected, make regulations''.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-26, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 13, with
the following:
``26. (1) The Governor in Council may, in consultation with the standing
committee and the provincial governments, on the''.
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-26, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 13, with
the following:
``after consultation with the provinces affected, make regulations''.
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 25, on page 16,
with the following:
``appropriate, members of those bodies, in consultation with the provinces and
with the approval of the standing committee,''.
Motion No. 66
That Bill C-26, in Clause 40, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 26,
the following:
``(2) In exercising the powers and in performing the duties and functions
assigned to the Minister under this Act, the Minister shall, as far as possible, see
to it that the provinces affected by the application of this Act are consulted.''
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in resuming the
debate may I make the preparatory comment that one has been
fascinated by the debate tonight. I point out to those trained in the
great Cartesian tradition that balance and form are an integral part
of its mode of reasoning. Therefore what we are suggesting here
was in that full spirit.
This is an oceans act and it is not the proper forum to tack on
American congressional style, other matters that are better dealt
with elsewhere.
There is nothing in this debate that indicates the government
regards the comments made opposite as irrelevant or not of
importance and worth consideration. Surely they belong in another
forum and we would welcome the members of the official
opposition to co-operative federalism through federal-provincial
discussions of the sort referred to by the hon. member for Chambly
and bring these matters there.
In terms of the oceans act, it has its own integrity and it should
be left with that. The references to clause 9(5) of the oceans act are
misplaced. That is a simple interpretive provision. As a matter of
law in the Latin sense it is inserted ex abundante cautela. It takes
away no rights, it creates no rights. It is a simple provision of
interpretation. It leaves the situation as it was before.
3620
Getting back to the specific amendments now proposed by the
Bloc, we would have to recognize that the government has applied
multi-disciplinary approaches here. It looks to an integration of
economic, environmental and social considerations and it seeks
to involve all affected stakeholders.
Stewardship of the ocean and coastal resources is
responsibilities we must all share, federal, territorial, provincial,
municipal and aboriginal governments, in partnership with the
larger community, the extended family, business, unions,
non-government organizations and academics.
The government is prepared for the leadership role in oceans
management and embraces the reality of co-operative stewardship
and partnership.
Although the government is committed to collaboration with the
provinces, as evidenced by its preambular statements in the Canada
oceans act, the Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments such as
Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 which would require further
consultation with the provinces and would obligate the review of
decisions made by the governor in council by the standing
committee.
This is a fundamental change in the structure of government that
may well be worth considering in another forum. Everything is
open to discussion in those terms, but it is the wrong approach to
try and tack it on to the oceans act, which has its own integrity and
its own purposes.
The Bloc amendments apply to other ministers and to the
governor in council. To require the governor in council to consult
with the provinces and with the standing committee before issuing
a regulation recommended by another minister is in legal terms a
preposterous proposal.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be making
recommendations to the governor in council on the delineation of
maritime zones. It is a question of international relations, not one
of federal-provincial relations, as suggested by Bloc Motion No.
24.
The Minister of Justice will be making recommendations
respecting the application of federal and provincial laws to the
maritime zones of Canada.
(2100 )
Regulations respecting the application of federal and provincial
laws to the maritime zones under the provisions of part I of the
Canada Oceans Act are the responsibility of the Minister of Justice.
It is not the role of the provinces or of the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans to alter the responsibilities of either of these
two ministers, or to interfere with the recommendations they make
to the governor in council.
Further, Motion No. 39 proposes to require that the minister
consult with the provinces and receive approval from the standing
committee before establishing advisory or management bodies and
appointing members to those bodies. The minister is already
required to take the views of the provinces into account, so this
motion in legal terms is redundant.
Again the Bloc is proposing that the minister's abilities to
exercise his mandate be fettered, this time by proposing that the
valuable time of the standing committee be taken away, time that is
better spent representing the views and interests of Canadians.
In short, we have found the debate interesting and fruitful in
terms of ideas. We do regard the amendments in essence as ones in
which the Speaker could have exercised his discretion the other
way, but we have made no proposal to that effect. I would suggest
the thrust of these matters is not germane to the oceans act under
consideration and would be better taken up in another forum at
another time. And be assured this government is prepared to
consider every proposal in those other fora.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I certainly have
some difficulty understanding the parliamentary secretary's
scheme of thought tonight when he says this is not the right place to
discuss the motions I have tabled. It is indeed because we were not
able to agree in committee that it is my prerogative as a member of
Parliament to submit to the House certain observations that could
not be heard during the committee's proceedings.
The implied spirit of all the motions before us tonight did not
transcend the committee's work. I get the impression the
committee was pressed by time, given Minister Tobin's imminent
departure. The machine went somewhat out of control and we were
forced to limit our work a little.
As a general rule, I am easy to work with, to communicate with.
I must say that things were going well on the other side for a while,
up till the moment when pressure from the government machine or
the department, perhaps in anticipation of Mr. Tobin's departure,
caused them to put aside the spirit underlying my motions. That is
why I had to wait for the bill's debate in the House to explain what I
mean to all hon. members and those watching us, since in
committee we are not always able to speak directly to the people.
That is why we are here tonight.
I always come back to the underlying spirit. I will read again the
group containing Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27. It is quite simple.
Since they are short, I will read them again. Motion No. 24 says
``the Governor in Council may, in consultation with the standing
committee and the provincial governments''. Why refuse to
mention one of the main partners?
3621
Motion No. 25 says ``after consultation with the provinces
affected, make regulations''. Provinces have direct contact with
populations. I feel it is normal that they should be consulted before
regulations take effect. If we adopt that line, we deprive ourselves
of a source of information. Since provinces are closer to them,
they are normally able to convey or express their populations'
problems.
I quoted a figure in jest a few moments ago in the anteroom for
the members who were there. I told them that if we were to take
simply this framework, we would not be rebuilding the
Constitution and the history of Canada, but just giving ourselves
the tools that would allow us to settle in advance 90 per cent of the
problems before they appear.
(2105)
So, we must find information sources.
Motion No. 26 reads:
``26.(1) The Governor in Council may, in consultation with the standing
committee and the provincial governments, on the''.
I mention this motion again because we have here four groups of
motions which say that consulting the grassroots is a good thing,
that having a communication process, a feedback process is a good
thing. Without such a process, we will run into problems.
Ottawa, the national capital, is a beautiful place, but it is right in
the middle of the country. Of course, departments have regional
offices, but that is not good enough when, as in the case of those in
our ridings, they are all managed according to the viewpoint of
Ottawa. Regional offices are maybe full of goodwill, but they have
no contact with the grassroots. Therefore, it is very important to go
back to the base.
I will try to go a bit faster. Among the other motions, there is
Motion No. 39 which I find interesting. I will read it and explain
after. I propose the following amendment:
``appropriate, members of those bodies, in consultation with the provinces
and with the approval of the standing committee,''.
Clause 32 says: ``For the purpose of the implementation of
integrated management plans, the minister (
a) shall develop-(
b)
shall coordinate-(
c) may-establish advisory or management
bodies and appoint or designate, as appropriate, members of those
bodies''.
If an organization responsible for the integrated management of
oceans must be created, do you not think it appropriate to establish
a good working relationship from the start? I would ask the federal
government to discuss it immediately with those who created
Canada, namely the provinces. That is the kind of ideas that should
be discussed.
If there must be integration and implementation of a
management strategy, it would be appropriate to consult
provinces, since there will be more than two members on advisory
or management bodies and those members will have to come from
somewhere. It will not be from Mars. So it would be important to
give the provinces a say in who will be appointed to these
organizations, giving them a chance to ensure that the appointees
will reflect or at least know their basic philosophies. As for the
federal government, it will also ensure that this organization
includes people who will reflect its basic philosophy.
I think that our actions are dictated by common sense so that, to
make progress, we must share our ideas. We must then ensure that
we have a say in the appointment of the people who will manage
them.
My time is running out, but I also want to read Motion No. 66. If
I do not have enough time to complete my comments on this
motion, perhaps one of my colleagues could do so.
``(2) In exercising the powers and in performing the duties and functions
assigned to the minister under this act, the minister shall, as far as possible, see
to it that the provinces affected by the application of this act are consulted''.
That is what I am asking. There was no mention of this in clause
40 of the bill. Clause 40 deals with the powers, duties and functions
assigned to the minister in part III of the bill. This clause sets out in
concrete terms the management powers assigned to the minister.
Part II stipulates that he must implement an integrated
management strategy, while part III lists the powers he will have.
I think that, whenever the minister takes a measure affecting a
province or its people, he should consult this province. That is the
least he can do. Why do I have to put this in writing? Because, as
we just saw and as I have seen in my two and a half years as a
member of Parliament, the federal government does not usually
react that way.
Among other things, how come, in the case of the coast guard
and the new fee schedule for commercial ships, there was no direct
meeting between the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and
the transport officials from Quebec and Ontario?
(2110)
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am asking myself questions and
calling on this House to include this kind of provision because the
federal government does not react in a normal way. In other words,
we should protect ourselves in all our relations. So this, in a way,
would be our safeguard.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the motions in this
grouping speak to the governor in council having an obligation to
listen to the concerns of witnesses who appeared before the
3622
standing committee and to take them into consideration when
making decisions.
For the most part we can support these motions. They do not
speak to the issue of jurisdiction, but they do require the federal
government to move with some sensitivity and with some
obligation to consult.
There is certainly nothing wrong and as a matter of fact there is a
lot right with the federal government having a requirement to
consult with the stakeholders, the provinces and others when
making changes to legislation and when making changes to the
rules and regulations which govern Canada's marine areas. For that
reason the Reform Party supports these motions and thanks the
hon. member for Gaspé for submitting them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question on Group No. 6?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): A recorded division on the
proposed motion stands deferred. The recorded division shall also
apply to Motion No. 26.
The next question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): A recorded division on the
motion stands deferred. The recorded division shall also apply to
Motion No. 27.
The next question is on Motion No. 39. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): A recorded division on the
proposed motion stands deferred.
(2115 )
The next question is on Motion No. 66. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on the
motion stands deferred.
We will now move to Group No. 7 which includes Motions Nos.
28, 29 and 30.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-26, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 41, on page
14, with the following:
``27. A copy of each regulation that the Governor in Council proposes to
make pursuant to paragraph 25(b) or section 26, and any amendments to the
proposed regulation, shall be published in the Canada Gazette at least 60 days
before the proposed effective date of the regulation or the amendments to the
regulation and a reasonable opportunity shall be given to interested persons to
make representations with respect to the proposed regulation or the
amendments to the regulation.''
3623
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-26, in Clause 27, be amended by deleting lines 38 to 41, on page
14.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-26, in Clause 27, be amended in the French version by replacing
line 31, on page 14, with the following:
``d'effet, les intéressés-notamment les provinces-se''.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure
that I rise once again in support of the Canada Oceans Act.
I would like to thank all the members of the Standing Committee
on Fisheries and Oceans, and I include here the hon. member for
Gaspé, for ensuring that Bill C-026 is an accurate reflection of
consultations with Canadians and of the views advanced by
witnesses who appeared before the committee.
Motions Nos. 28, 29 and 30 concern clause 27 of the Canada
Oceans Act. Clause 27 repeats the prepublication obligation found
in the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act which has its
interesting mnemonic CLOAA which is an obligation required of
the government prior to the proposed effective date of the
legislation.
Currently the clause includes special consideration of the
provinces with respect to providing feedback on proposed
regulations. Federal legislative policy and practice already calls for
consultation with stakeholders on proposed modifications to
regulations.
In our view, the Bloc's Motion No. 28 would only serve to
increase the administrative burden of this act by obligating the
government to prepublish all proposed amendments as well as
continuing with the public consultation practice.
Administrative burden is something the government is trying to
reduce because it costs the taxpayer money. I think I can safely
state that there is not one individual or organization that in
consultations or when appearing before the standing committee in
the autumn of 1995 requested more red tape be introduced into this
legislation. Therefore the government is not prepared to support
Motion No. 28 or Motion No. 30 which eliminates the clause that
recognizes that legislative policy and practice does not call for the
prepublication of amendments or regulations.
Additionally, to obligate the government to prepublish each and
every single proposed amendment to each and every regulation
would not only burden the process unnecessarily but it would serve
no purpose. To accept this motion will only serve to increase the
administrative burden the government is trying hard to reduce. At
the same it would offer no benefits to Canadians.
I am happy to support the regulation making provisions of this
legislation and the government's Motion No. 29, a technical
amendment to clarify the intent of clause 27 which is to say that
interested provinces will be given the opportunity to make
representations with respect to proposed regulations published in
the Canada Gazette.
This and similar technical amendments are being proposed to
show that Canada Oceans Act makes it possible for Canadians to
work together to shape the best national answers and the best local
answers for the sustainable development of our ocean resources.
I ask all members to reject the Bloc proposed amendments to the
regulation provisions of this act, specifically Motions Nos. 28 and
30, as unnecessary and without grounds and to support the
government's amendment, Motion No. 29.
I am happy to support the bill and urge all members to join me in
allowing the legislation to go forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we seem to be
reading these documents differently.
An hon. member: It is due to jet lag.
Mr. Bernier: It is perhaps not due to jet lag, but I do not
understand. Just to make sure all the hon. members in this House
and everyone watching are clear on this, we are currently on
Motions Nos. 28 and 30. Here is what they are about. There are two
clauses on regulations in the bill, namely clauses 25 and 26. Clause
25 deals with recommendations of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Clause 26 also deals with regulations made by the Governor in
Council, but on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice this
time.
(2120)
If I am calling your attention to this, it is because the bill before
us is trying to establish integrated management, which would
effectively force all cabinet members across the way to talk to one
another. That is great. Second, channels of communication also
need to be provided for. Publication requirements are stated in each
clause. But when we get to clause 27, it is not quite clear.
What I find shocking in all this is that, and I am getting to my
Motion No. 30, and read the following in clause 27, paragraph 2:
``No proposed regulation that has been published pursuant to this
section need again be published under this section, whether or not it
has been altered''. What is the catch here? What it says is that
regulations can be made, but that if they are altered, changes will
not be published. I do not understand. Not only have we been told
over and over all evening that this is not the place to talk about
constitutional amendments and the kind of changes we would like
3624
to make, but now we are told that changes will be made but that
we will no longer be informed of changes made. What does this
mean?
I will give the other motion the hon. parliamentary secretary
mentioned. It is from the fisheries department, the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans. The proposed change relates to the
provinces, and for once there was a clear reference to the provinces
in clause 27. It was clearly stated that relations had to be
established with the provinces, but they want to take that out
offhand and write ``notamment les provinces'' instead. That was
not said openly, but that is my understanding.
Since the beginning of the evening, I have been trying my best to
make it clear that the intent of this bill is to establish integrated
management, which means teamwork. To work as a team, you need
partners. This spirit of partnership has to be honoured. Hence the
need to clearly state who the other players will be. I for one believe
it should be the provinces who make up Canada. How will all this
be put in place?
Earlier, I mentioned that organizations would be established to
oversee the implementation of the management plan. But we are
denied the right to be consulted on appointments to these
organizations. This time, we are told that it will be possible to make
regulations without having to publish them again. Can you believe
it?
It is becoming a tiring exercise. We spent a long evening
discussing the issue. I spent hours and even weeks debating it in
committee. This is the end result. It is supposed to be important.
You will notice that we mostly heard the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. But there are others who
worked on that committee. I would like to hear them. This bill on
the oceans of Canada is important. How come there are not more
people discussing it? Are we to understand that either it is not
important or it is controversial and people do not really want to
discuss it? I am a little disgusted by all this. I would like the whole
issue to be clarified.
After all that was said, what will people at home think of the
debates that take place here? This is like a dialogue of the deaf. The
hon. member rises and tells me this is not the place to discuss
amendments. I rise and ask where I can discuss these amendments.
I am trying to make things clear.
(2125)
I tell government members precisely what I would like to see
included; I tell them I would like a clear reference to the provinces;
I tell them I would like the government to respect the spirit of
partnership that is required. But the time is never right. When and
where will it be appropriate? Given the government's attitude, it
should come as no surprise that it refuses to do a reform, to
modernize things, and to take certain factors into account.
The government should not be surprised to see the population, at
least in Quebec, express its discontent. We are used to having a
referendum every 15 years. It is little things like this that, over the
years, result in accumulated frustration. In a business and a
partnership, if you want to be successful in the long term, you must
first make sure that the parties involved will not feel they got taken.
How come this is precisely the feeling I have this evening? I am
all the more convinced of that when I read that: ``No proposed
regulation that has been published pursuant to this section need
again be published under this section, whether or not is has been
altered''. Can we believe this to be merely a typo that escaped the
lawmakers' attention? I do not think so. But, since the evening
began, when I tell you that I think we might really get taken with
this bill, that is a striking example, which shows the sort of thing
the government will say.
As well, why is there such a rush for Canada to pass this
legislation? Earlier, I mentioned the relations between the various
departments, and I told you about the committee minutes. The
former fisheries minister said himself that his relations with the
former environment minister were like the yin and the yang.
If it is not yet clear across the way, how will they manage to
agree when it comes to speaking with the other partners described?
The point I am making, but I see my time is running out, is that for
once the objective seems a laudable one. I am forced to admit that,
at a given point in time, a bill that sets out to explain to the left
hand what the right hand is doing is very wise, but it would not do
for the government to get carried away, with the risk, in wanting to
see all its bills pass, of removing what is important in them. I
repeat, if we listen to this, these are management tools to ensure
that 90 per cent of problems will be resolved before they find
themselves in-Pardon me.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find myself in
complete agreement with my colleague from the Bloc.
This series of amendments has the effect of requiring the
government to do nothing more than advise Canadians through the
gazetting process of changes that it proposes to make. When the
parliamentary secretary opposed these motions, he was of the
opinion that this would create a lot of bureaucratic red tape and
would serve no useful purpose. It would only cost money.
I would suggest to him and to the government it is exactly that
kind of attitude of executive federalism which has failed this
country miserably, so that we have the problems that we have right
now. I do not see what is wrong with the government putting
Canadians on notice, through the gazetting process, of changes it
intends to make in regulations or in legislation.
3625
Reform believes that any amendments to regulations should be
done in an open manner and, as such, should be published in the
Canada Gazette as would the implementation of any other
regulation. Forcing the governor in council to print all
amendments to regulations as well as the original regulations will
serve to ensure all regulations are made in an open manner. It
would also allow the public 60 days to make a representation to
the minister on a particular regulation or amended regulation that
may affect them. Consultations are imperative and not to be
viewed as negative but must instead help to ensure that regulations
are fair and take into account the interests of the affected
stakeholders.
(2130)
Reform has a saying and we are learning how to say it in French:
the problem with Canada is Ottawa; le problème du Canada, c'est
Ottawa.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, a great deal of
work has been done tonight on Bill C-26. There is a large number
of motions. The official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, has
indicated it would have one more speaker for a maximum of five
minutes, the member for Chambly would speak for no more than
five minutes, and that would conclude the debate on Group No. 7.
Would that be agreeable to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again,
and believe me, very reluctantly, I pass through you to address the
hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. In administrative law, it was
always stated in legislation ``the Governor in Council may, by
order'', meaning an order from the House. This House could,
therefore, ask the Governor in Council to adopt or promulgate this
or that regulation.
Listen well-speaking to the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra, Minister of State for Fisheries, via the Chair who is
himself listening to us most attentively: ``the Governor in Council
may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs-''
This is clause 25. It does not say ``on order of the House'' but ``on
the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs''. Clause
26(1) has the same effect, except that it reads ``on the
recommendation of the Minister of Justice, make regulations''.
As you are aware, the Statutory Instruments Act was not passed
by either the Bloc, the PQ, the Government of Quebec, or the
former Leader of the Opposition, but by all of you together here. It
is your legislation, you are the originators of it. Not you personally,
Mr. Speaker, but the House. The Statutory Instruments Act is
passed over, and we enter the spirit of, and follow in the wake of,
the late lamented bills. By that I mean C-62 of last spring, which
was never passed, and C-84 which came back to us in the guise of
C-25. The minister is taking over the powers of this House.
So much for the Statutory Instruments Act. From now on, the
minister may, on his own initiative, just wake up one day on the
wrong side of the bed, and there we are, he can just pass
regulations, any regulations. He tells the Governor in Council
``pass this for me this morning''. The House is not informed, no
one is.
Worse still, the icing on the cake, as they say, is clause 26(2).
Somebody was mixed up, somebody goofed, a regulation has been
poorly applied or announced. No problem. It is not necessary to
publish the draft regulation again, even if modified.
For example, it is written that large vessels are no longer entitled
to ply the St. Lawrence, when what was meant was small vessels,
but that is not published. The first small vessel they catch in Du
Moine Channel or in my buddy's riding of Saguenay, is told he is
breaking the law. He replies that he has seen nothing to that effect,
and we tell him that there is nothing to see, it was not published.
We had published one; it was no good. We prepared another; it
was not published. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and my
colleague for Vancouver Quadra should certainly know this maxim.
Now, however, he is changing it to: guess right. That is what it will
be from now on for clause 26(2), especially: guess right.
Earlier on, he was criticizing me for trying to do indirectly what
the law did not permit directly. Here, it is the opposite. He is doing
indirectly what the law requires him to do directly. So everything is
topsey turvey. You tell the member for Vancouver Quadra, since I
cannot tell him myself. As we said: ``A word to the wise is
sufficient''.
All that to say to the member for Vancouver Quadra: ``Try it-''
I see the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell getting in a
state. He is chic. I am not sure whether he has understood the
technique. The member for Vancouver Quadra could explain it to
him. I am sure he will do it well. He is a famous prof.
I will ask him one last time to intercede with his leader, his
officials or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There is even a
clause to the effect that it is possible to fish if it is done in good
faith. I saw that somewhere. I have never seen such a law.
In any case, as for the passage of regulations, I would ask the
member for Vancouver Quadra, if he could exercise his authority in
the matter a bit and try to line their eyes up with the holes. They
need it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will now move on to the
question. The question is on Motion No. 28. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
3626
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): A recorded division on the
motion is deferred.
[English]
We would have to wait for the vote to actually take place on
Motion No. 28 to know how it would apply to Motions Nos. 29 and
30, as was the case earlier this evening with another grouping.
[Translation]
I thank all those who spoke this evening for their co-operation.
Pursuant to order passed Tuesday, May 14, 1996, the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 9.38 p.m.)