36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 204
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 25, 1999
1005
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| ESTIMATES PART III
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1010
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT, 1987
|
| Bill C-77 Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| AUDITOR GENERAL ACT
|
| Bill C-490. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Motion for concurrence—14th report
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1015
1020
1025
1030
1035
| Motion
|
1115
1120
(Division 363)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Justice and Human Rights—8th report
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Ms. Albina Guarnieri |
1150
1155
1200
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1205
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1210
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion
|
1215
1300
(Division 364)
| Motion agreed to
|
1305
| Subcommittee on Corrections and Conditional Release
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Motion
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
1310
| Motions in Amendment
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Motion No. 10
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motions Nos. 11 and 12
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Motion No. 13
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Motion No. 14
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Motions Nos. 15 and 16
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Motion No. 17
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Motion No. 18
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Banking
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Young Offenders
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Abortions
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Bill C-284
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1315
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Report Stage
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1320
1325
1330
1335
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1340
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1345
1350
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| TUBERCULOSIS
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1400
| NUNAVUT
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| CASINOS ON CRUISE SHIPS
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| COMMON CURRENCY
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1405
| CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS
|
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| THE LATE EDMUND TOBIN ASSELIN
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
1410
| DAFFODIL DAY
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| RUN AGAINST RACISM
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| EAST WILTSHIRE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| GUN CONTROL
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1415
| RED CROSS
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1420
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. John Manley |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1425
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. John Manley |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1430
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. John Manley |
| POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1435
| SOFTWOOD LUMBER
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. John Manley |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1445
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Hon. John Manley |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| CANADIAN FORCES
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. David Price |
1450
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| DAIRY PRODUCERS
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| POVERTY
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1455
| Hon. John Manley |
| WILDLIFE
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1500
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. John Manley |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Statements by Ministers
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Estimates
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Report stage
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1510
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1515
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1520
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1525
| Amendment
|
1530
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1535
| Mr. John Cummins |
1540
1545
| (Division deemed requested and deferred)
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1550
1555
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1600
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1605
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1610
1615
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1620
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1625
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| (Division deemed requested and deferred)
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1630
1635
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1640
1645
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1650
| CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
|
| Bill S-11. Second reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1655
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
|
| Bill S-11. Second reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1700
1705
| ROYAL ASSENT
|
1715
| The Deputy Speaker |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1720
| CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
|
| Bill S-11. Second reading
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1725
1730
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1735
1740
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1745
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 204
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 25, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wish to seek unanimous consent for the following motion. All
parties have been consulted and I believe they all agree with the
following. I now want to submit it to the House. I move:
That for each of the following items of business, at the
specified times, all questions necessary for the disposal of the
specified stages shall be deemed to have been put and divisions
requested and deferred to the end of consideration of Government
Orders on Tuesday, April 13, 1999:
1. Report stage of Bill C-27, when debate concludes or at the
end of the time provided for Government Orders on March 25, 1999,
whichever is earlier;
2. Second reading of Bill S-11, when debate concludes or after
45 minutes of debate, whichever is earlier;
That at the commencement of consideration of Bill C-27, all
amendments that are ruled to be in order shall be deemed to have
been duly moved and seconded;
That, when the aforementioned business has been completed, if
the House has not yet attended a royal assent ceremony, the
sitting shall be suspended to the call of the Chair; and—
For further clarity, if we complete government business before
question period, that would also mean that the Chair would
suspend the sitting until question period and recall us for that.
That the House shall not sit on Friday, March 26, 1999, but
shall be deemed to have sat and adjourned on that day for the
purposes of Standing Order 28.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
copies of the government's response to the report of the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on
the quality of life in the Canadian forces.
* * *
[English]
ESTIMATES PART III
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the President of the Treasury Board I am tabling part
III of the estimates consisting of 83 departmental reports on
plans and priorities.
These documents will be distributed to members of the standing
committees to assist in their consideration of the spending
authorities sought in part II of the estimates.
* * *
1010
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages
the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee has studied
the report of the Task Force on the Future of the Canadian
Financial Services Sector.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we wish
to indicate that the Bloc Quebecois has tabled a dissenting
opinion to the final report of the finance committee concerning
the Mackay report.
We feel it lacks precision where Canadian
financial services in support of the disadvantaged are
concerned, as well as not going far enough. We also consider it
an injustice toward provincially chartered insurance companies
in Quebec, which cannot at present acquire blocks of insurance
from federally chartered companies, and this is an injustice
which must be remedied promptly.
Unfortunately, the dissenting opinion does not allow us to
remedy that injustice in such a way as to serve the interests of
Quebec.
* * *
MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT, 1987
Hon. Stéphane Dion (on behalf of the Minister of Transport)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-77, an act to amend the Motor
Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 and to make consequential amendments
to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL ACT
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-490, an act to amend the Auditor General
Act(Poverty Commissioner).
She said: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any tools to
demonstrate the true face of poverty and of any assessment of
the effectiveness of federal government programs and policies, I
propose creation of a position of poverty commissioner.
This person's mandate would be to analyze the causes and effects
of poverty in Canada, to assess the effectiveness of federal
government measures to reduce or eliminate poverty, and to
advise the federal government on measures it might take to
reduce or eliminate poverty.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I move that the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights, presented on Wednesday, October 28, 1998, be
concurred in.
1015
Mr. Speaker, it is truly unfortunate that I have to stand today
in the House to address a very serious issue that happened in the
House of Commons yesterday. I will take my time to go through
it. From a personal perspective, I am going to tell members what
kind of impact this decision has had on my community and many
communities throughout the country.
My concurrence report and motion, which I originally put on
October 28, 1998, No. 17, refers to the justice committee and
issues relative to victims' rights, the sentencing of offenders
and that sort of thing.
The rights of individuals, in particular victims of crime, the
issues related to prison reform and what happens to individuals
who walk away from our prisons and commit crimes has been an
issue that has been very near and dear to my heart. I can tell
those people listening and members opposite that not only is it a
very serious issue for me and my community, which has affected my
community very dearly, but I can assure the House that members on
this side, in particular, have been fighting these issues for
some time. I have a private member's bill that is very close to
the issue that I am about to bring up.
This is not just an issue of the Reform Party. There was a very
interesting private member's bill that was introduced by the
member for Mississauga East. It was brought into the House some
time ago. On second reading only three people in the House
opposed the motion to send this private member's bill to
committee to be further developed. I am glad to see the
solicitor general here this morning because I hope to impress
upon him how important this particular issue is and how the
decision of the justice committee yesterday affects this issue.
The member for Mississauga East knew full well when she
developed her private member's bill just what the implications
were of the kind of justice issues that we have today. She
introduced Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act respecting cumulative
sentences for first reading on October 21, 1997.
As we have said all along in the House, the relevance of Private
Members' Business is important to all of us. This is not just an
issue where the cabinet should be able to say “That is nice. You
have a bill, but that is not our decision, so nothing else
matters”. The fact is that the member for Mississauga East who
developed this private member's bill was not only speaking for
the people of Mississauga East, she was speaking for many members
on all sides of the House, including me.
Do not laugh over there. This is damn serious stuff and those
members better get used to it.
To the folks who are listening, the revenue minister is taunting
us on something that is very important to this country. It may
not be important to him in Vancouver, but I can assure him that
it is damn well important to most people in this country. That
is the problem with this government and its ministers. They have
the unmitigated gall to cancel good business that comes into this
House from private members, but they do not seem to have one
ounce of regard for private members when it is their cabinet
business that comes into the House.
The Minister of National Revenue is heckling us. I would like
you, Mr. Speaker, and the rest of the people listening to
understand exactly what that fellow is heckling. This is the
nature of the bill that was quashed in committee yesterday, which
was supported by all members of the House, save three, last
October.
This is how the bill reads and this is what a minister of this
government is heckling:
1020
I am going to stop for a moment because a member of the cabinet
is trying to disrupt the process. The member is from Vancouver.
I guess the victims of crime in Vancouver would be a bit more
than disturbed to understand that a cabinet minister is heckling,
because we are trying to get this cabinet to understand that this
is an important bill.
It is nice to see the solicitor general sitting quietly and
attentively. If we could finally get the revenue minister from
Vancouver to shut up for a little bit, maybe—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford is an experienced member of the House. He
knows, as we all know, that heckling is something that does
happen in the House from time to time. I think he would
recognize that while he may disagree with what some members are
saying in the House from time to time while heckling, as we all
do, I cannot hear the heckling very well. I think his speech
perhaps is not being unduly interrupted by the noise in the
House. It is fairly quiet in here today. Perhaps we could
continue with the remarks with a little more spirit of
co-operation on all sides of the House.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I am an experienced member
of this House and that is why I am standing today. I am sick and
tired of private members bringing legislation into this House—
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am having difficulty hearing my hon. friend, the House
leader for the Reform Party. I was in fact sitting behind him
for awhile and still had difficulty hearing him because of the
heckling of the revenue minister.
I would appreciate the opportunity to hear the speech this
morning. It is just a matter of respect to allow that to happen.
The Deputy Speaker: We all want to hear the speech that
the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford is making. I am sure
hon. members will bear that in mind.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I sit considerably farther from my colleague in the Reform Party
and I am having absolutely no trouble, using my earphone,
understanding what the hon. member is saying.
The Deputy Speaker: I think we will manage. We will do
our best to all hear the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford. I
am sure all hon. members appreciate the assistance of the hon.
member for West Nova.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to
something that is very serious indeed and I will forget the
heckling of the minister of the government from Vancouver.
This is the private member's bill that was passed in this House.
I will read it so that everybody will understand.
This enactment provides for the imposition of consecutive
sentences where a person commits sexual assault and another
offence arising out of the same events or where the person is
already serving another sentence at the time.
The enactment also provides that a person sentenced to life
imprisonment for first degree murder or second degree murder is
not eligible for parole until the person has served, in addition
to the portion of sentence that the person must serve for murder,
one-third or a maximum of seven years of any other sentence
imposed on the person in respect of an offence arising out of the
same events or that the person is already serving. The mandatory
portion of each life sentence imposed on a person who is
convicted of a second murder must be served consecutively before
the person is eligible for parole.
I have to ask, what in blue blazes is wrong with that? This is
an issue that all sides of this House felt was very important to
Canadian society.
I live in an area that has seven federal penitentiaries and
numerous provincial penitentiaries around it. In our communities
of Abbotsford and Langley, and throughout Mission where some of
my colleagues live, in Chilliwack and, indeed, throughout the
lower mainland, people are walking out of prison, and in some
cases, like the Sumas Centre, just walking out of prison and
committing such crimes as rape and murder, very serious offences.
What happens? They go back, get tried and, if they are lifers,
nothing really happens. They get a concurrent sentence with no
additional time added to their sentence.
One might say that they are serving life anyway, so why does it
matter?
1025
The fact is that life does not mean life in Canada. First
degree murderers, for goodness sake, can be out after 15 years
under the faint hope clause, section 745. The problem is that
this Liberal member for Mississauga East introduced a completely
logical private member's bill. And we applaud her for that.
It is so typical in this House where it is a logical issue that
the justice minister or the solicitor general, who I appreciate
is listening today, says that yes, that is logical and we do not
want to fight this one publicly, because if we do the public will
ask what is wrong with that and they may not vote for the
government, and therefore we better be concerned because the
general public is concerned.
What happens? Ministers stand in the House of Commons on second
reading on a private member's bill such as this and they say that
as a cabinet they will support it; that, indeed, they are the
champions of the rights of Canadians and the protectors of
law-abiding Canadian citizens; that they will see this goes
through second reading of the House of Commons, that it goes into
committee and everybody will be happy.
We took the word of the ministers on that. What happened
yesterday in committee? It took all but three minutes plus a few
odd seconds for Liberal members to go clause by clause through
this private member's bill and nix, negate, forget, throw away,
quash every darned word of this bill. There were no amendments,
nothing.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Shame. They deleted the whole bill.
An hon. member: It was not only the Liberals. It was not
just the Liberals, though, there was a Bloc MP. Put it on the
record.
Mr. Randy White: A member says it was not just the
Liberals. Yes, I believe we do have one member who is not a
Liberal who did not quash this.
Why do we face the situation in the House of Commons today where
all but three members of the House on second reading said yes,
but when it went to committee the Liberals, who have a majority
on the committee, said no? What happened? Did these very
members on that committee who voted no yesterday vote yes in
1997? The answer is yes. So what happened? Only three members
said no to it way back when and we had seven nixing the bill
yesterday. If they cared that much about it, then what changed
between the vote on second reading and a committee meeting?
I will tell hon. members what changed. The cabinet sat down and
said that it never did like this bill. Cabinet members only
wanted to stand in the House of Commons to tell Canadians they
were all for it and then go behind closed doors to tell the
chairman of the committee to scrap it.
The parliament secretary for justice was on that committee and
voted against the bill yesterday. Government members sitting on
that committee said “We do not give one damn what we did at
second reading. We are telling you now that is not going to
go”.
There are two issues here. There is the issue of criminals who
perpetrate crimes, serious offences, who go to prison and get out
on an unescorted leave of absence or an escorted leave of absence
or parole or some form of exit from prison.
An hon. member: Or when they are golfing.
Mr. Randy White: Or when they are golfing or riding their
horses. Maybe they jump over the fence. Who knows? When they
get out, they commit another crime and then nothing else happens.
The public says “He certainly will get punished for raping my
daughter. After all, this guy is a rapist”, but nothing
happens. They are given a concurrent sentence, which means no
additional time. It says on their record that they committed
another rape or another murder.
1030
Is this what the Liberal government wants? Was this the agenda
all along? It did not care about this issue. When Liberals were
standing up in the House voting for it, they lied to the Canadian
public. That is what they did. They gave a false impression
that they support this kind of stuff but as soon as they get out
of the House of Commons, hey, bury that thing.
It is really too bad. It is just sickening for somebody in a
community who has seen more than his share of this kind of thing
happening. I have recently been working with a victim, an
individual who was raped by an inmate who was out on a unescorted
temporary absence, a UTA.
We know what that inmate will get. We know he got his pound of
flesh and the legal system will give him a concurrent sentence.
That is what this bill was all about. It was all about showing
inmates that just one crime or as many crimes as they want are
punishable by the same sentence. That indeed is wrong.
I can say from personal experience that every time I come into
the House on these kinds of issues I get a little more
disappointed in how the Liberal government operates. How long
did we wait for the Young Offenders Act to be amended? We came
in here in 1993 and pushed and pushed again. There was minor
tinkering and lots of press announcements by the group over
there. It was tabled after two sessions of parliament. Even that
is not adequate enough today.
It is not hard to see that the public wants a change in the
country. If the public wants real meaningful change it will not
get it from the government and it should understand that all the
rhetoric will not in any way get or deliver justice in this
country.
I remind the House and all those who are listening of three
things. First, the Liberal government save three people in the
House of Commons passed on second reading the bill I have here. I
will read the contents of the bill once again.
Second, after getting it to a committee, it deliberately behind
closed doors told its members on that committee of which it has a
majority to squash it. It deliberately misled the Canadian
public on this.
Third, the good intentions of this private member's bill have
been lost. They are gone. The process now may well take another
two or three years to get this back and that is sad because I can
guarantee there are many people who will become victims of crime,
the subject of this bill.
I want to read it once again and remind everybody what the
Liberal government has done. The bill said the following:
This enactment provides for the imposition of consecutive
sentences where a person commits sexual assault and another
offence arising out of the same events or where the person is
already serving another sentence at the time.
The enactment also provides that a person sentenced to life
imprisonment for first degree murder or second degree murder is
not eligible for parole until the person has served, in addition
to the portion of sentence that the person must serve for murder,
one-third or a maximum of seven years of any other sentence
imposed on the person in respect of an offence arising out of the
same events or that the person is already serving. The mandatory
portion of each life sentence imposed on a person who is
convicted of a second murder must be served consecutively before
the person is eligible for parole.
1035
It is so very serious that it has been turned down like this in
this shady way. I want the member for Mississauga East to be
present in the House and she is not available at the moment.
Therefore I move:
I wish debate to be adjourned until the member for Mississauga
East is in the House so we can talk further on this bill.
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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1115
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to advise the House exactly why we are here and the
circumstances.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am afraid that is
not a point of order. I will proceed to putting the question to
the House.
The question is on the adjournment motion.
1120
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Assad
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Harris
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mifflin
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 144
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Cummins
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| McNally
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Penson
| Power
| Price
|
Ramsay
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Strahl
|
Vellacott
| Williams – 42
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS—8TH REPORT
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I move that the eighth report of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on
Friday, May 15, be concurred in.
1125
I am pleased to rise today to speak to the debate on this
motion. It is particularly a pleasure to do so, as a result of
the most disgusting performance I have ever seen in my life that
happened in the justice committee yesterday when the member for
Mississauga East had her private member's bill destroyed by a
bunch of sheep Liberals who were following orders from their
justice minister and from the Prime Minister.
This was on Bill C-251, a bill that was overwhelmingly passed in
the House. It was approved by all but one Liberal member of the
government; all but one voted for it to go to committee. In a
matter of five seconds, following the orders of the government
and the Minister of Justice, Bill C-251 in the name of the member
for Mississauga East was destroyed.
Shall the first clause pass? No. Shall the second clause pass?
No. Shall the title pass? No. It was destroyed by her own
people, stabbed in the back by her colleagues, joined by Bloc
members and NDP members. In disgusting solidarity NDP, Bloc and
Liberal members voted down a very acceptable private member's
bill.
I will read Bill C-251 for the pleasure of the Liberal
government that destroyed it yesterday and for the interest of
the Canadian public that is watching today. Her bill read as
follows:
This enactment provides for the imposition of consecutive
sentences where a person commits sexual assault and another
offence arising out of the same events or where the person is
already serving another sentence at the time.
The enactment also provides that a person sentenced to life
imprisonment for first degree murder or second degree murder is
not eligible for parole until this person has served, in addition
to the portion of sentence that the person must serve for murder,
one-third or a maximum seven years of any other sentence imposed
on the person in respect for an offence arising out of the same
events or that the person is already serving. The mandatory
portion of each life sentence imposed on a person who is
convicted of a second murder must be served consecutively before
the person is eligible for parole.
In other words, the bill was presented to take the discount out
of sentencing which the Liberal government supports. We are
talking about getting rid of the discount sale of the government
in its justice system if one commits more than one serious
offence like murder or sexual assault. That is disgusting.
The Liberals destroyed private member's Bill C-251 by the member
for Mississauga East in five seconds and then laughed. They
laughed and joked in committee about how easy it was to destroy a
colleague's bill in committee. They laughed and the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice laughed as well.
She laughed and all her colleagues laughed. They thought it was
funny.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: They deny it, Mr. Speaker. Why
would they admit to such a disgusting display as laughing at a
bill as important—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Chair is finding
it very difficult to hear the hon. member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley. Perhaps members on all sides could
restrain themselves so we can hear the debate.
1130
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I distinctly heard the loud mouthed parliamentary secretary
shouting “liar” on several occasions.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I realize that debate in
the House on issues such as this can be pointed and tough at
times.
We talked a moment ago about the parliamentary secretary calling
one of our members a liar. She reaffirmed that in the House. I
would expect that we will be asking for a question of privilege
that this member be asked either to take those words back or be
removed from the House.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair asks the hon. parliamentary
secretary did she use the words that have been complained of? If
so I ask her to withdraw them.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my
comments and my calling the member a liar if that member returns
to what actually happened in the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There are no ifs involved in
this. The hon. parliamentary secretary is an experienced member.
She knows that it is not in order to use the word liar. I ask
her to stand up and please withdraw the word immediately and
unequivocally.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I said that was a lie.
I did not call the member a liar. I said his facts were a lie.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the parliamentary
secretary cannot get out of this on that basis. I ask her to
withdraw the word lie or liar unequivocally right now, please.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, considering that I have
great respect for this institution I withdraw the words.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, let me name the
ridings of the Liberal members who attended as well and who
laughed and joked when that bill was destroyed in five seconds.
1135
Apart from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice, the member for Winnipeg South also thought it was a big
joke. The member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford thought it was a
big joke. The member for Simcoe North thought it was a big joke.
The member for Oshawa thought it was a big joke. The member for
Brossard—La Prairie thought it was a big joke. The member for
Scarborough East thought it was a big joke. They all thought it
was a big joke to destroy the private member's bill of the member
for Mississauga East.
The Liberals voted overwhelmingly in favour of second reading
and to go to committee. Did they mean it? Of course not. They
did not want this bill. They wanted it to get to committee so
that the government orders could be followed to destroy this bill
in under five seconds in committee.
We have seen some disgusting things out of this government since
1993 and this one rates right near the top. Not only was this
bill, which had a tremendous amount of merit and a tremendous
amount of benefit to the public safety of this country, destroyed
by this government, by the sheep that follow the orders of the
whip, the House leader or the Minister of Justice, but this act
has destroyed what little confidence the Canadian people might
have in the effectiveness of private members' bills.
What happened yesterday sent a clear message out to every member
of parliament, who represent millions of Canadians across the
country, that if one puts a private member's bill forward, no
matter what happens in the House in first and second reading, no
matter if there is overwhelming consent or not, if it gets to
committee and someone on the government benches, the cabinet,
does not want this bill, it is destroyed. Is that democracy?
Is there any semblance of democracy in that process? The answer
is no. This malicious, disgusting act by the Liberal government
has destroyed whatever confidence Canadians had in the ability of
their elected members to present a private member's bill in the
House and have any chance of it going through if some member of
the government benches does not want it. That is a crime in
itself. That was a criminal act yesterday.
What the Liberal members did yesterday, following the orders
from their dictator, whoever he or she was, was nothing less than
a criminal act.
The Deputy Speaker: If I heard the hon. member right, he
said members committed a criminal act. If that is what he said I
am sure he would want to withdraw those words. Members in their
capacity as members of the House voting on bills and motions in
committee or in the House surely are not committing such an act.
I am sure the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley would
want to withdraw any such suggestion.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, of course I will
withdraw. What I said was in passion. What I should have said
is that what the Liberal members did in committee could be
described as nothing less than a criminal act. It was so vile
and so disgusting that it could be accurately called an immoral
act or an obscene act of power hungry dictators in the government
having their orders carried out by their minions who show up for
these committee meetings attempting to give some impression that
they are actually interested in what is going on. They are
attempting to give some impression that they actually care about
business in committee.
The killing of this bill by the Liberals yesterday also had
another effect. It had a profound effect on the ability of
law-abiding Canadians to have a sense of security about the
safety of their families.
1140
This bill, had it passed, would have kept murderers and rapists
and others who commit heinous violent crimes of that nature in
jail. It would have ended the volume discounts for murderers,
rapists and other violent criminals the Liberals government
supports.
This act yesterday was a clear example of the Liberal
government's supporting the most lenient treatment possible for
violent criminals. That is what it did yesterday. It supported
the most lenient treatment possible under the Criminal Code.
That is what the Liberal government is all about. That is what
it supports.
It is disgusting. How can any law-abiding Canadian citizen have
any sense of security about the safety of their family when this
worthless government does not have the guts, does not have the
intestinal—
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member is
perhaps overwrought today, but he is going beyond the bounds of
proper discourse. He knows it has been ruled unparliamentary on
numerous occasions to use the last words he used. I would invite
him again to withdraw the words and perhaps show a little
temperance in his language.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on this issue it is
very difficult to show temperance but I will try. I will withdraw
that. What did I just withdraw?
I say this for the benefit of the Canadian people. The
government killed Bill C-251, a bill that would keep in jail
violent criminals, criminals who commit the most heinous and
serious crimes, a bill that would end the volume discounts where,
if a person commits three murders, they would only serve time for
one and if a person rapes three or four or five women, they would
only serve time for one. That is the way the law is now. This
would have changed it. This would have provided for consecutive
sentencing.
This government clearly displayed yesterday that it supports
violent criminals being treated in the most lenient manner
possible. That is the message it sent out yesterday. That is
the message this government sent out yesterday when it destroyed
Bill C-251.
I sat there in utter amazement as I watched this bill destroyed
in under five seconds. All the efforts of the member for
Mississauga East in putting this bill forward, the turncoating of
the Liberal members who supported her bill in second reading, now
cast aside as if it were some worthless piece of paper.
I think the Liberals showed no support for law enforcement
officers. They have clearly demonstrated in everything they have
done in justice terms that they do not support police forces in
this country. They do not support law-abiding citizens. Who are
they supporting? They appear to be supporting and have given
credibility to the thought that the people they support are the
people who commit crimes.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for
Simcoe North.
1145
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I move:
She was standing.
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.
I declare the motion carried.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has now been three full years since I first
introduced my private member's bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
When you called for those in favour and those opposed, more than
five members rose. I therefore call for a recorded division.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair did not see five members
rising at the same time. Some members stood up and sat down, and
then others stood up, but there were not five standing at one
time that the Chair was able to see. Accordingly I declared the
motion carried. The hon. member for Mississauga East has the
floor.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, it has now been three
full years since I first introduced my private member's bill on
consecutive sentencing for multiple murderers and rapists.
It was blocked once by the subcommittee on private members'
business. It was blocked again by the same committee six months
later when I reintroduced the bill. Then again after the
election it was finally permitted to be made votable and was
voted at second reading and referred to the justice committee
which did hear from many witnesses. Yesterday the bill's three
year journey ended in three minutes.
The bill has the unfettered support of the attorney general and
the solicitor general of Ontario, the justice minister of Alberta
and the justice minister of Manitoba.
Bill C-251 passed second reading, as I mentioned, 81 to 3. The
bill has the support of the Canadian Police Association, the
Canadian police chiefs, the police services board and every major
victims organization in the country. Bill C-251 has the support
of both NAC and REAL Women. The bill has the support of the
national Union of Solicitor General Employees.
The bill is the second of three key legislative requests made by
the Canadian Police Association during its 1999 annual
legislative conference and lobby day.
As this will likely be the last time in this parliament that
concurrent sentences for multiple murderers and rapists are
challenged, I would like to read into the record some of the
arguments that were presented in opposition to the bill and
respond to them.
1150
The Criminal Lawyers' Association asked the question: Why does
this particular offence, referring to sexual assault, have to
attract consecutive sentences? Why is it centred out? Why do we
not pick robbery, break and enters, car jackings, or home
invasions? A convicted murderer who also presented to the
justice committee had a similar problem distinguishing between
rape and going through someone's drawers during a break and
enter.
Sexual assault I would maintain is different from break and
enter in that sexual assaults cause permanent, often catastrophic
harm to the victim. From the perspective of the assailant or his
legal representatives, this impact on the victim may not be of
great importance. But again I remind the House that not long ago
this House both supported consecutive sentences and mandatory
minimums for offences involving firearms, including imitation
firearms. Is a conviction for sexual assault any less important
than a conviction for the use of an imitation firearm?
The myth that life is life was also perpetuated. The Criminal
Lawyers' Association, the John Howard Society and Lifeline, a
society of paroled murderers, all protested that a life sentence
actually means life imprisonment: “The punishment for murder,
regardless of whether it is first or second degree is
imprisonment. There can be no greater term of imprisonment”.
Multiple murderers, according to Correctional Service Canada
using its own statistics, serve an average of only 18.8 years in
prison. That was the evidence of a witness from the Department
of the Solicitor General who presented data to the committee
showing that the largest group of multiple murderers in the
system, 292 multiple murderers in total, can expect to spend only
that long in prison.
I remind the House that Denis Lortie was luckier. He was
released on full parole after 11 years after committing three
murders. Three and one-half years for each murder. That is the
reality of today's justice system. Once parole is granted, a
life sentence can mean as little as one visit to a parole officer
every three months. It usually means one visit a month according
to one witness.
Even in the current law there is a degree of differentiation
within a life sentence. The minimum parole ineligibility for
first degree murder is 25 years, while the minimum for second
degree is 10. Hence there is already ample precedent for
applying different parole and eligibility periods for different
crimes within a life sentence, as is called for in Bill C-251.
The assertion that a life sentence results in imprisonment for
life is an Orwellian deception that serves to mislead Canadians.
The justice committee heard evidence of the extent of volume
discounts in the current system. The committee was told that 321
multiple murderers had received concurrent sentences, and
according to statistics, an average volume discount of 58%. That
means the average multiple murderer will actually serve less than
half his cumulative sentence in jail.
The committee also heard that 60% of all sex offenders admitted
to federal prisons were multiple sex offenders who received
concurrent sentences. The average volume discount was 68%. Time
served under concurrent sentences was shown to be less than
one-third of the time that would have been served under a
consecutive sentence.
The committee also heard of the threat to society posed by
paroled murderers. Various organizations claimed that released
murderers posed no great threat to society but sadly, statistics
tell a very different story. Paroled murderers, according to
Correctional Service Canada, using its own statistics, are 100
times more likely to commit a future murder than the average
Canadian.
1155
Most Canadians would believe that a rehabilitated person should
be no more likely to commit another murder than their neighbour.
That is not the case. Paroled murderers remain a high risk
group, 100 times more risky than any other Canadian. We were told
in committee that five Canadians have been murdered because of
the early release of murderers who were not genuinely
rehabilitated.
The argument of constitutionality was raised. Various groups
attempted to give the impression that Bill C-251 would not
survive a charter challenge. But what the supreme court has
actually said, and I cite Steel v Mountain:
It will only be on rare and unique occasions that a court will
find a sentence so grossly disproportionate that it violates the
provisions of section 12 of the charter which deals with cruel
and unusual punishment.
And I cite Queen v Smith:
The test for review under section 12 is one of gross
disproportionality because it is aimed at punishments that are
more than merely excessive. We should be careful not to
stigmatize every disproportionate or excessive sentence as being
a constitutional violation.
The above cases and others demonstrate that there is no basis
whatsoever to assume that consecutive sentences will fail a
charter challenge. The only constitutional lawyer who testified
before the committee expressed his legal opinion that there is no
charter vulnerability.
There is no precedent anywhere in the world that would directly
support a charter challenge. It is telling that no witness who
spoke against the bill provided a legal opinion on the
constitutional matter, choosing instead in large part to focus on
matters of policy.
I would like to remind the House that Bill C-68, imposed by the
same justice committee, imposed consecutive minimum prison terms
for the use of a firearm or an imitation firearm in the
commission of a crime. These consecutive minimums actually
exceed the median time served for sexual assault.
Judicial discretion was raised. For multiple sexual offenders
witnesses opposed to the bill could not agree among themselves as
to the impact that the bill would have on the total sentence
received by a multiple sex offender. Some said that it would
cause a substantial increase. Others suggested that judges might
adjust sentences for each offence to reach the same overall
sentence.
Witnesses obviously have different views as to the impact of the
bill on sentencing because they cannot predict the reaction of
judges. Witnesses cannot predict the reaction of judges because
judges will continue to maintain judicial discretion as to the
overall sentences in these cases.
At present, in the case of multiple murderers there is no
judicial discretion in sentences for first degree murder. Bill
C-251 does not change that. A mandatory period of parole
ineligibility will still apply but must be of a length that is
proportional to the number of victims. Is that so unjust?
The question of costs was raised. Various organizations
referred to cost and resource issues potentially associated with
Bill C-251 in relation to multiple murderers. One presented a
misleading figure that totalled the annual cost for the next 69
years. Bill C-251 can have no cost impact whatsoever for at least
10 years. The bill is not retroactive and can only have an impact
on resources when future murderers come up for parole not less
than 10 years from now.
Delayed parole for multiple murderers will cause an annual
increase in prison population of about .1% per year for about 20
years beginning in the year 2010. This is derived from
information provided to the justice committee by Mary Campbell of
the Department of the Solicitor General.
1200
With respect to the position of women's groups one witness
claimed that the women's movement and NAC in particular were
opposed to separate penalties for male offenders who victimized
women and children. She said:
This statement is clearly intended to give the impression that
NAC opposed the bill. As I mentioned earlier, the National
Action Committee on the Status of Women sent a letter of support
for Bill C-225. It supported the principle of my bill. REAL
women also sent a letter of support.
Those were the arguments. The bill is supported by three
provinces, police associations, women's groups and victims'
groups. I leave it to the House as to whether it wishes to have
a vote to provide Canadians with the view of parliamentarians on
volume discounts for murderers and rapists.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for Mississauga East for her words. I know how
much this means to her. I know her persistence in trying to get
it through for a number of years.
Does she have some thoughts on the impact this kind of
legislation would have? Should we eventually get this kind of
legislation, what does she feel the impact will be on Canadian
society as a whole?
Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
I know he has a particular sensitivity to this issue.
It is my fervent hope that the wisdom of the House will prevail
and that legislation, whether it emanates from the department or
whether it is translated by my bill, will come forward to ensure
that the bulk rate for murder and volume discounts for rapists do
not prevail. Currently that is the law in Canada today.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have a few comments and questions. It is important for those
watching today to understand exactly what has taken place.
We are debating today a private members' bill that has been
before the House numerous times, as indicated by the actual mover
of the debate who was the last speaker. She indicated a witness
list. We should also indicate that of the witnesses that
appeared before the committee many were opposed to it, including
the National Association Active in Criminal Justice, the Canadian
Criminal Justice Association and the Church Council on Justice
and Corrections.
I hear members of the Reform Party throwing jibes at these
witnesses: the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, the
Criminal Lawyers Association, the Canadian Bar Association made
up of prosecutors that prosecute those people who are charged,
the John Howard Society, and the Elizabeth Fry Society. The John
Howard Society said that the bill and the intimidation tactics
used to support it were regrettable.
It is important for people to understand what debate was
interrupted today by members of the Reform Party. It was a
debate dealing with fish stocks. It is important for people and
fishermen in British Columbia to understand that the important
issues affecting them and affecting the fishermen in Atlantic
Canada were interrupted by a tactical manoeuvre by the Reform
Party, which says it is a populist party, to play games and get
this issue before the House.
I make that comment so that fishermen on both sides of the
country will understand that if we do not get to the fish stocks
debate, which is crucial to the livelihood of fishermen, it is
because members of the Reform Party wanted to play this game and
make certain political points with a bill that has already been
debated in the House numerous times.
I direct my comments in that vein. They are important for
members to understand.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, there is no denying
that fish stocks is a crucial issue and is pertinent to the lives
of fishermen.
I thank the initiative of the Reform Party and my colleagues
opposite in the Tory party who have chosen to highlight one of
the obscenities in the Canadian justice system.
1205
I remind the hon. member that despite the witness list he cites,
I commissioned a Pollara poll which indicated nine out of ten
Canadians agree with this position.
Mr. John Bryden: So what?
Ms. Albina Guarnieri: I hear someone saying “so what”.
Perhaps there is a disconnect between the justice committee and
the will of the majority of Canadians. I believe it is
imperative and important for the matter to have a full hearing.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am the a member who said “so what”. On issues like
this one, issues involving the lives of people and understanding
justice issues, we should not conduct opinion polls in order to
enact legislation. Those people, the Mulroney Tories, were the
ones who tried to run the government and the country by opinion
polls.
The bill got due process in committee. It heard from witnesses
who found fault with it. I suggest that members of the Reform
Party accept parliament as it is. Members of parliament have
spoken to the bill, so let us leave it and move on.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like clarification, if I could, from the Chair whether
the member is indicating that the lives of Canadian citizens are
more important than fish.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member knows
that is not a point of order. He is really raising debate.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, tempers are rising
here. I am sure my colleague did not mean to suggest that this
is not an important issue for debate.
However, it is my firm belief, after being here 10 years, that
the only way the bill should be dealt with is by a vote in
parliament. A handful of individuals may be thoroughly
disconnected from reality.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to commend the member for
Mississauga East for her diligence and persistence, much against
the will of her own party. I do not want to get into the
partisan side of it. I do not want to respond to the remarks
in the previous intervention with respect to which parties best
represent public interest.
There is a very important element here of representing what it
is that the public wants. As has been quite clearly demonstrated
by the comments of the member for Mississauga East, this is a
very emotional and visceral issue for most Canadians when we
start talking about volume discounts and shortening the parole
eligibility of murderers.
We are talking about repeat offenders, those who have not
committed just one offence but have committed multiple offences
and offences on the very high end of Criminal Code violations in
terms of their seriousness. The consecutive sentences that would
result from this private member's bill would obviously—and I
defy anyone to argue otherwise—protect Canadians from those
specific offenders to which these sentences would attach.
Implicit in the bill is the very genuine intention to deal with
habitual criminals who are released by virtue of early parole.
The current government and the current commissioner of
Correctional Service Canada have a very insidious plan with
respect to the release of prisoners on parole, a 50% release plan
that would see by the year 2000, 50% of current inmates back on
the street through one form or another.
This is something that should be alarming and shocking to all
Canadians. The point of the bill is to ensure that convicted
offenders, murderers and rapists, do not have an opportunity to
go out on to the streets and perpetrate the same types of
offences.
The most startling and disturbing statistic was that the
likelihood a person who has committed an offence of murder or
rape will reoffend, compared to average law-abiding citizen, was
100% more likely to commit a murder or a rape after being
released on the conviction of such an offence.
1210
I invite the member for Mississauga East to respond to the
intent of the bill and what it would accomplish in terms of its
broad spread application on our parole system and the effect it
would have in terms of protecting Canadians from repeat offenders
for these types of offences.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his very astute comments and insights into my bill.
Since I presented the bill I have sadly been visited by far too
many victims who have told me their tales of woe in terms of how
the justice system impacts on their lives.
Canadians are far too familiar with the story of Don Edwards
whose sister was raped and subsequently her assailant ended up
murdering her parents. Don Edwards has told me his story of how
his family has gone into hiding, how dysfunctional it has been
for the community and for the extended family. His sister is in
hiding. He has moved his family south of the border. One of the
saddest commentaries I have ever heard in my life, including the
10 years I have been here, is when Don Edwards said the border
would be his protection for his family.
My bill would impact on victims in giving them a sense of
security so they would—
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Previously the member for Sydney—Victoria suggested this
debate would replace a critical fish debate. The debate it is
replacing is not worthy of support and he should know that.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that is not a
point of order.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
privilege. I want to take the opportunity to respond to some of
the comments made by the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley. He named me specifically as a member of the justice
committee and he used the term these criminal acts, which he has
now withdrawn, in reference to the activities of the committee
yesterday.
I will point out a couple of inaccuracies where he implied that
all members of the justice committee on the Liberal side who
voted not to approve the bill had voted in the House to send it
for second reading. I would like to correct that, in that I did
not vote for that bill. The implication that the bill was
disposed of in five seconds is not accurate. There were many
witnesses—
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid we are getting into
debate. It is one thing for the hon. member to air a grievance
in respect of how he voted, but beyond that I am afraid the hon.
member is entering into a debate which I do not believe is a
question of privilege.
I am not sure that he had one on the first point. It may have
been a grievance. I think the hon. member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley recognized that this was not a question of
privilege.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that today, when we were to
debate Bill C-27, we are spending so much time debating a private
member's bill because of delaying tactics.
I do not want to get into an argument about the possible merits
of this bill, but since spring is upon us and the government is
taking such a long time defining a fisheries management policy,
I would like to propose the following motion:
The purpose of this motion is to allow us to proceed to orders
of the day to hear what the government has to say on the
fisheries bill and to have done with it.
1215
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 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: Call in the members.
1300
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Boudria
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mifflin
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
– 136
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Cummins
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Morrison
| Muise
| Penson
|
Power
| Price
| Ramsay
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Strahl
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 41
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Assadourian
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bulte
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dromisky
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Graham
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Mercier
| Patry
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Sauvageau
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Venne
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
1305
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wonder if you would seek unanimous consent of the House for the
following. While the government side pairs with one of the other
official parties in the House, the Bloc Quebecois, earlier today
at a previous vote we erred in adding the names to the register.
I understand from our table officers that procedurally we have to
seek unanimous consent to apply the last vote taken to the
previous one in terms of the pairings that are in the register
for this day.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There has been consultation among the
parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That the subcommittee on Corrections and Conditional Release Act
be granted authority to travel to Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg
during the week of April 19, 1999, to Kingston and Toronto during
the week of May 10, 1999 and to Montreal and region during the
week of May 24, 1999 and that the necessary staff accompany it.
(Motion agreed to)
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will also find, after consultation, that there is
unanimous consent for the following motion for the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade:
That Group “A” composed of seven members of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and of the
Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and
Investment, be authorized to travel to Winnipeg, Toronto, London
and Windsor from April 25 to 30, 1999, and Group “B”, composed
of seven members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade and of the Subcommittee on International
Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment, be authorized to travel to
Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and Saskatoon from April 25 to 30,
1999, in order to hold public hearings in relation to its
examination of Canada's trade objectives and the forthcoming
agenda of the World Trade Organization, WTO, and examination of
Canada's priority interests in the FTAA process, and that the
necessary staff do accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-27, an act to
amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada
Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the agreement for the
implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea of 10 December, 1982 relating to the
conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks and other international fisheries treaties
or arrangements, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We go now to the
rulings on the groups at report stage of Bill C-27.
There are 18 motions in amendments standing on the notice paper
for the report stage of Bill C-27. The motions will be grouped
for debate as follows.
Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
[Translation]
Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 17.
[English]
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 4 and 7.
[Translation]
Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 8, 10, 12 to 16 and 18.
1310
[English]
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.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the motions in Group
No. 1 are deemed moved and seconded. This group contains
Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, on Group No. 4, I do not
believe you mentioned Motions Nos. 14 and 15. I believe it is
supposed to be Motions Nos. 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I can understand the
parliamentary secretary's having a little difficulty with my
French.
[Translation]
In French I said Motions Nos. 8, 10, 12 to 16.
[English]
Motions Nos. 12 to 16. It is included.
[Translation]
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ)
moved:
That Bill C-27 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 3 the
following new clause:
“1.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 2:
2.1 The objectives of this Act include the implementation of the
Agreement, in accordance with which, in order to conserve and
manage straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks,
coastal States and States fishing on the high seas shall, in
giving effect to their duty to cooperate in accordance with the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December
1982:
(a) adopt measures to ensure long-term sustainability of
straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and
promote the objective of their optimum utilization;
(b) ensure that such measures are based on the best scientific
evidence available and are designed to maintain or restore stocks
at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, as
qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors,
including the special requirements of developing States, and
taking into account fishing patterns, the interdependence of
stocks and any generally recommended international minimum
standards, whether subregional, regional or global;
(c) apply the precautionary approach in accordance with article
6 of the Agreement;
(d) assess the impacts of fishing, other human activities and
environmental factors on target stocks and species belonging to
the same ecosystem or dependent upon or associated with the
target stocks;
(e) adopt, where necessary, conservation and management measures
for species belonging to the same ecosystem or dependent on or
associated with the target stocks, with a view to maintaining or
restoring populations of such species above levels at which their
reproduction may become seriously threatened;
(f) minimize pollution, waste, discards, catch by lost or
abandoned gear, catch of non-target species, both fish and
non-fish species, and impacts on associated or dependent species,
in particular endangered species, through measures including, to
the extent practicable, the development and use of selective,
environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing gear and
techniques;
(g) protect biodiversity in the marine environment;
(h) take measures to prevent or eliminate over-fishing and
excess fishing capacity and to ensure that levels of fishing
effort do not exceed those commensurate with the sustainable use
of fishery resources;
(i) take into account the interests of artisanal and subsistence
fishers;
(j) collect and share, in a timely manner, complete and accurate
data concerning fishing activities on, inter alia, vessel
position, catch of target and non-target species and fishing
effort, as set out in Annex I, as well as information from
national and international research programmes;
(k) promote and conduct scientific research and develop
appropriate technologies in support of fishery conservation and
management; and
(l) implement and enforce conservation and management measures
through effective monitoring, control and surveillance.”
That Bill C-27 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 3 the
following new clause:
“1.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section
2:
2.1 This Act shall be interpreted in accordance with the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 and
the Agreement, including the designation of any area of the sea
falling under the jurisdiction of regional organizations,
regulated by regional arrangements or established by other
international fisheries agreements or treaties.”
That Bill C-27, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing, in the French version, line 22 on page 3 with
the following:
“espace maritime désigné au titre du sous-ali-”
(b) by replacing, in the French version, line 36 on page 3 with
the following:
“maritime désigné au titre du sous-alinéa”
(c) by replacing, in the French version, line 41 on page 3 with
the following:
“me désigné au titre du sous-alinéa 6e)(ii) ou”
That Bill C-27, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 8 on
page 4 with the following:
“6. (1) The Governor in Council may make”
That Bill C-27, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing, in the
French version, line 25 on page 4 with the following:
That Bill C-27, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing, in the
French version, line 21 on page 5 with the following:
That Bill C-27, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 2
on page 6 the following:
“(2) No regulations shall be made under paragraph 6(e) or (f)
unless the Minister has laid before the House of Commons a draft
of the regulations that are to be made at least 120 days before
the regulations are made.
(3) No regulations made under paragraph 6(e) or (f) of this Act
shall come into force unless they have been approved by the
committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters
relating to fisheries and oceans.”
That Bill C-27, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 5 and
6 on page 6 with the following:
“7.01 (1) If a protection officer has serious reasons to
believe that a fishing vessel of a”
That Bill C-27, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing, in the
French version, line 9 on page 6 with the following:
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-27, in Clause 4, be amended by
replacing line 13 on page 6 with the following:
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ)
moved:
That Bill C-27, in Clause 8, be amended
(a) by replacing, in the French version, line 5 on page 7 with
the following:
“dans un espace maritime désigné au titre du”
(b) by replacing, in the French version, line 12 on page 7 with
the following:
“un tel traité ou entente et désigné au titre du”
(c) by replacing, in the French version, line 16 on page 7 with
the following:
“maritime désigné au titre du sous-alinéa”
(d) by replacing, in the French version, line 19 on page 7 with
the following:
“espace maritime désigné au titre du sous-ali-”
That Bill C-27, in Clause 8, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 7 with the following:
“subparagraph 6(e)(i). An officer who has serious reasons to
believe that the vessel has”
(b) by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 7 with the following:
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-27, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 34 to
41 on page 7 with the following:
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore,
NDP) moved:
That Bill C-27, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 38
and 39 on page 7 with the following:
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-27, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 30 on
page 8 with the following:
That Bill C-27, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 4 on
page 9 with the following:
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ)
moved:
That Bill C-27, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing, in the
French version, lines 13 to 17 on page 9 with the following:
“a.1) soit dans un espace maritime désigné au titre du
sous-alinéa 6(e)(ii), à bord ou au moyen d'un bateau de pêche
d'un État assujetti à l'accord;
a.2) soit dans un espace maritime désigné”
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-27, in Clause 12, be amended
(a) by replacing line 16 on page 9 with the following:
“of a fishing vessel of a participating state or of a fishing
vessel without nationality;”
(b) by replacing line 21 on page 9 with the following:
“subparagraph or of a fishing vessel without nationality; or”
[English]
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask,
being that we jumped over petitions because of the previous
motion in the House, if I could have unanimous consent to present
some petitions I would like to very quickly and urgently table in
the House. There may be others who have that same request. I
will get through them quickly. Could we have unanimous consent
for that?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
PETITIONS
BANKING
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the House for granting my request.
I present a petition with some 1,000 names. It is necessary to
get this in. The petition is asking for the rejection of the
recommendations of the MacKay task force report pertaining to the
entry of banks into the casualty and property insurance markets.
The petitioners urge the government not give in to the pressure
of the banks on this matter at present or in the future.
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another petition in respect to young offenders.
These petitioners, about eight pages in total, simply ask that
there be a more serious approach taken to crimes of young
offenders and more serious consequences and proper punishment for
the crimes committed by young offenders.
ABORTIONS
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the next petition is with respect to medically unnecessary
abortions. These increase health risks for women undergoing this
procedure. Opinion polls indicate consistently that Canadians do
not support tax funded abortions.
The petitioners urge that there be a referendum to ask voters
whether they are in favour of government funding for medically
unnecessary abortions. The petitioners uphold the sanctity of
life for all preborn.
THE SENATE
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the last petition is with respect to the Senate.
These petitioners ask that in view of the fact that Canadians
deserve an accountable Senate responsible to the wishes of the
Canadian people, a house that will act as a sober second thought
in law making, they call on parliament to accept the results of a
Senate election.
BILL C-284
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions today adding to the 25,000 names calling for
legislative changes regarding pardons for those who are in
positions of trust over children.
1315
These petitions add to those 25,000 names in support of a bill
that I have now before the justice committee, Bill C-284. The
petitioners are calling for access to the pardoned records of
pedophiles when they are applying for positions of trust or care
over children.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-27, an act to amend
the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act
to enable Canada to implement the agreement for the
implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the
conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks and other international fisheries treaties
or arrangements, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee; and of Group Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it seems to be very difficult for me today to
finally get down to work on the fisheries problem, but here we
go.
For those members who have just joined us, and for those
listening to the television, I repeat that the purpose of Bill
C-27 is to implement the United Nations fisheries agreement.
This agreement flows from the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea.
The purpose of the first two amendments the Bloc Quebecois
wishes to move to Bill C-27 is to clarify meaning and to ensure
that Canadian legislation is consistent with the international
agreement. In my view, there were oversights.
I will begin by looking at Motion No. 2 and then go to Motion
No. 1.
The purpose of Motion No. 2, which we wish to introduce
concerning Bill C-27, is to provide a basis for interpretation
for tribunals that will be called upon to use this Canadian law.
It reminds them that interpretation of Bill C-27 shall be in
accordance with the fisheries agreement based on the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982.
This may seem highly technical, but my colleague for
Beauharnois—Salaberry has reminded me that all laws and
agreements must draw their essence from somewhere. When an act
is to be interpreted, when a case goes before a judge, it is
important that the basis for interpretation of that act be
written down in black and white.
Now, I return to Motion No. 1, still in Group 1. For the benefit
of the public and of those who sat on the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans, the objective of this motion is to add a
new clause, 2.1, to Bill C-27, making reference to article 5 of
the United Nations fisheries agreement, part 2.
Why do I take the time to make this clarification? Because the
purpose of clause 2.1 is to provide a philosophical base for
administration of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
When Canada wants to sign an international agreement, when it
wants to implement this treaty, we must be assured of having the
tools here in Canada to go along with the international law.
I have merely asked the clerk to include, word for word, the
contents of article 5 of the UNFA, as I have already explained.
I am simply trying to summarize, since it is a fairly long
clause, unless the House will give me permission to read it
entirely, without shortening my speech. I am summarizing it in
order to provide some principles of the philosophy of
management.
This clause sets out in subclause (a) administrative measures to
ensure the long term sustainability of straddling fish stocks.
In subclause (b) our intention is to ensure as well that there
is a data base containing verifiable and reliable scientific
information that serves the interests of all parties concerned
for the welfare of the so-called migratory species.
1320
Subclause (d) concerns the assessment of the impacts of fishing
and other human activities on the marine ecosystem.
Subclause (e) concerns the adoption of conservation and
management measures. I would remind people that these are
general management philosophy principles.
However, I draw members' attention especially to the following.
Our reference in subclause (f) to minimizing pollution, waste,
discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear and such things should
be noted.
This is why I want this introduced into Bill C-27, so Canada may
then set out its future policy on fishing, a statement of
policy. For example, what will Canada do with respect to the
measures including the development and use of selective
environmentally safe and cost effective fishing gear and
techniques.
That means we are prepared to be ecological and to give thought
to the environment, but always from a cost effective standpoint.
I agree with that, but we will have to get into the details one
day.
I would draw members' attention to another point, still in this
clause 2.1 we are proposing to the House. It is subclause (i),
which provides that we must take into account the interests of
artisanal and subsistence fishers.
This is important for me because I live in a coastal area. My
house looks out on Gaspé Bay and the Gulf of St. Lawrence
beyond, so there are lots of fish going by. We want to make
sure that all those living in maritime areas will have artisanal
and subsistence fishing rights because they were born near the
sea and it is very much a part of their lives. We want to make
sure that this right will always be respected. That is why it
is important that this be included in the legislation.
But there is much more and I will try to summarize it in more
general terms. When Canada is allowed to ratify and implement
an agreement with an international treaty, Bill C-27 tends to
Canadianize things. I did not find the management principles
that are part of this agreement in the bill.
Nor did I find them clearly stated in earlier legislation,
unless members opposite can tell me where.
As far as I am concerned—and I would remind members that the
auditor general had already asked the government to come up with
a national policy—we in the Bloc Quebecois are still interested
in helping to define such a policy, not that I intend to stay
shackled to the centralist federal system forever, but so that
we can have our say.
It is important that we be given an opportunity to provide
input. I would like to be able to go into more detail in this
clause, but because its only purpose is to implement the
fisheries agreement, I would merely remind the House that spring
is upon us.
On April 1, the fishing season will be opening in the Gulf of
St. Lawrence for many fisheries, including shrimp and crab in
certain areas.
Every time the fishing season opens, there is always a debate
among fishers from the various regions. Since quotas are set by
the federal government, there are very few mechanisms, if any,
to guarantee to these fishers what quotas they will get. Some
would like to have, to the extent that it is possible, historic
quotas by province.
I would go even further. We should take into account provincial
historic quotas, the proximity of stocks as well as the regions
within a province.
This is why I am asking hon. members to think about the French
management model, which includes since 1992 the criteria of
relative stability; it is designed to put an end to the
bickering between fishing regions since people know what their
quotas are and can work with them. This would help fishers.
Second, and we often forget this, plant workers should be
allowed to know what volumes will be handled by and go through
their plant during the year.
1325
I will come back to the other groups later, unless the House
consents to my continuing to speak, but I see the other side is
in a hurry to talk too.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Continue.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Since I am told I may continue to speak, I
will address the criterion of relative stability.
I would like the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to use the
meeting to be held in Quebec City after the parliamentary Easter
break to ask his provincial colleagues what they think of the
criterion of relative stability. Then we could total the factors
the various ministers might take into account to establish the
stability criterion.
I think traditional share should be a factor, and the proximity
of the resource.
My final point concerns the problem of new species, new
fisheries. I think this should be addressed urgently.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before I recognize
the member for Vancouver Quadra, I want to clarify that we are
debating all of the amendments before the House. It is quite
legitimate for anyone to speak to any of the amendments before
the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I appreciate that the government members can talk about any
group they want, but I want to make sure that I will be allowed
to speak to the other groups. Usually, a member can speak only
once to a group of motions.
If I understand my sheet, I should be able to rise another three
times. For example, if certain members have to leave and if one
wants to speak to the fourth group before the first, I have no
objection, but on the condition that I may return to speak to
the three other groups.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The order made
earlier today indicates that all groupings are on the floor.
Having said that, I understand that the critics very often have
specific interventions on specific groups. I will seek further
clarification on the member's specific concern. However, given
the circumstances, the member would find that the Chair and the
House are favourably disposed, through consent, but we cannot
count on it. I will get a specific ruling on that intervention
before we proceed.
We have a technical glitch. All of the amendments are before
the House to accommodate some members who are not able
to be here for all stages of this debate. However, the critic
for the Bloc has to speak to each of the preordained groupings.
May we have the unanimous consent of the House to afford the
critic for each party or a representative from each party to
speak to the groupings, even though all are before the House at
this time?
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with
that, as long as that includes the critic for each party and the
parliamentary secretary on this side.
1330
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that if
we give unanimous consent it would include all of the members of
the committee, all of the critics who sit on that particular
committee and the official opposition party as well. Could that
be included?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Please give us a
second to sort this out. I think that the Chair understands the
mood of the House in what we are trying to achieve. We need to
make sure that we can do this technically.
The Clerk has brought to my attention the fact that the only
member who was compromised by the fact that I did not indicate
that all motions are before the House is the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, the critic for
the Bloc. Would it be the pleasure of the House to provide for
the member to intervene a second time on the motions as they are
presented? Everyone else has the option.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the member
from Gaspé is trying to do and I agree with his intent. However
he will have an opportunity to come back and speak again.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is exactly the
problem. Under the rules the Bloc critic does not have the
opportunity to speak to the other amendments and was not advised
thereof before he spoke for the first time.
I would suggest that the way for us to get around this is to
provide for the member from the Bloc to be able to speak to it.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, would not a much
simpler solution be to gain unanimous consent to debate each
group separately and then we can just move through the groups
very quickly. If no one has any comments, then away we go.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We could do that. It
is a good point but there is no way that we could necessarily get
back to all groups today.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I would give consent to
giving the member an opportunity to speak again at the end of the
rotation, if we have unanimous consent. The member would have an
opportunity to speak once more at the end of the rotation. That
would resolve it and we could carry on. I make that motion and
ask for unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion presented
by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for unanimous
consent would be that because the member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok was not aware of
the fact that all motions were on the table, that the member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok and only that
member be given the last 10 minutes of debate so as to ensure
that he does have the opportunity to speak to all of the
amendments on the floor.
Just to be clear, the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok will have one
more opportunity to speak for 10 minutes during debate.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure I understood
correctly. I will be allowed to speak again, but will that be
after all members in the House have spoken, or when my party
comes up again in the rotation? That is my first point.
1335
Second, I understand that the members who speak now will have
only 10 minutes to address four groups of motions. If that is
what the House wants, I will bow to its wishes, but I think
members should understand that 10 minutes for four groups of
motions is very little time, since the future of the fishery and
the fate of an international treaty are involved.
However, if that is what the House wants, rest assured that when
we come back at third reading I would like my speaking time to
be longer than any fish ever seen.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I think the House
has been very generous in affording the critic time.
I am sure the House understands the very real interest that all
members, but particularly the member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok has in the
fisheries. The member may speak during the normal rotation. It
would probably be best to speak again in normal rotation.
Therefore, resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
[Translation]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I
would like to thank the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok for his helpful
contribution to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
At the time, I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans. The hon. member is an intelligent man
and an unfailingly co-operative committee member.
[English]
To return to the subject specifically, the kernel of our
discussion is of course the 1982 United Nations convention on the
law of the sea.
It is worthwhile reminding the House that Canada, with Singapore
and Venezuela, in effect was the conscience of this great
international law making project. It lasted for 12 years. Alan
Beesley who was legal adviser to our foreign ministry, Tommy Koh
of Singapore, and Aguilar Mawdsley who later became a judge at
the World Court, provided the modernizing ideas on the law of the
sea. It is a great credit to their initiatives that this became
a convention after 12 long years of negotiation.
We still have not ratified the convention which recently became
law with the 60th instrument of ratification and there were
reasons for that. It was thought that there were gaps in the
treaty which became apparent in the light of subsequent
developments.
Those hon. members who were in the previous parliament will
remember the problems the minister of fisheries of that period
had with flagrant overfishing as we saw it by certain long range
European fishing countries just outside Canadian territorial
waters. This overfishing contributed to the degradation and
ultimately the threat of disappearance of scarce fisheries
stocks.
The minister, on excellent and imaginative advice, decided to go
ahead anyway. He was right that there was a legal base for the
control action we took. It was necessary to go back to the 1958
and 1960 conventions, the first and second United Nations
conventions, to get the main philosophical support for what we
did.
It will be remembered that Canada was taken to the World Court
over this by Spain. In a ruling in December, the World Court
upheld Canada's position but on a technical adjectival law issue,
not the main substantive issue, of the ability to conserve
endangered or diminishing stocks.
In the meantime, to make assurance doubly sure we went ahead
with negotiation of supplementary international agreements that
would fill the gaps as they had now become apparent in the 1982
convention. These were the 1994 and 1995 UN agreements on
straddling and highly migratory fish stocks which are the
substance of the United Nations agreements on straddling and
highly migratory fish stocks, UNFA as it is referred to. For
these treaties to be able to go ahead, in our view we need to
supplement what the then minister of fisheries did by divine
inspiration and the power of the apple.
This is not an instrument of discord, an apple of discord. It is
a friendly object in international negotiations.
1340
The minister went ahead and took the action but it would be very
important to cross all the t's and dot all the i's
and make sure that Canadian internal legislation provides the
enforcement powers for the purposes of Canadian internal law that
the minister found, correctly, in international law as it then
existed before 1982 and as imaginatively reinterpreted to meet
new conditions.
That essentially is what this bill is all about. It will tidy up
our national law. It will then put us in a position to do what I
have asked for at least five or six times in the House over the
last several years, to go ahead and finally ratify the 1982
convention on the law of the sea.
This is a convention that Canadians inspired, in very large
measure. We gave it the interesting dynamic elements. We did
not have the problems that our American friends had. They
worried about damage to their internal mining and other interests
by the convention's very imaginative provisions on sharing some
of the to be expected wealth from ocean depth mining with
underdeveloped countries and others under a special United
Nations fund and a special United Nations administration. We did
not have these fears.
We did have this feeling and commitment to environmental
protection, the special concern that Canadians have had for
protecting endangered species and species in danger of extinction
as we have seen both on the east coast and the west coast. On
the east coast it is Europeans and on the west coast we feel it
is sometimes internal states within the American system that do
not respect the United States treaty obligations under
international law and on the west coast, the 1985 Canada-U.S.
Pacific salmon treaty.
This is a measure to tidy up our law. It will remove the
objections that some have made to our ratifying the 1982
convention. Immediately after the adoption of this law, it will
enable us to do everything to present a 200% perfect legal case
on which the then minister of fisheries in 1994-95, with great
imagination and that special gift of poetry that Newfoundlanders
and I suppose people from all of Canada's maritime regions have,
decided to go ahead. He cited the duty of protecting endangered
species, the notion that it is one world of scarce resources.
One country diminished by unnecessary illegal acts in terms of
general international law damages all the world community.
It is a very constructive piece of legislation. We welcome the
contributions that have been made from all parts of the House in
support of the measures conveyed in this. It is my great
pleasure to endorse the legislation, to urge its support and to
thank members from all parties in the fisheries committee and in
other arenas for the support they have given these general
principles.
We are a law-abiding country. We support international law, not
international law narrowly construed, but international law
captured in its full spirit and with an eye to emerging needs. It
is not simply a static re-statement of the old in relation to old
problems. It is capturing the new problems and finding creative
solutions for them.
I am assured by the former minister of fisheries and the
fisheries minister that this will enable us to proceed to
ratification of the 1982 convention.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we agree with the intent of this legislation. It is obviously
trying to implement the UN fisheries agreement which was
negotiated in 1995 and also the UN convention on the law of the
sea of December 1982, some 15 years ago.
1345
There is one very troubling clause, and that is clause 4 which
will change section 7.01. This is with respect to enforcement on
the high seas for unauthorized fishing vessels in Canadian
waters. We have foreign vessels fishing inside of Canadian
waters, in a NAFTA regulatory area. I will read it word for
word:
If a protection officer believes on reasonable grounds that a
fishing vessel of a participating state or of a state party to a
treaty or an arrangement described in paragraph 6(f) has engaged
in unauthorized fishing in Canadian fisheries waters and the
officer finds the vessel in an area of the sea designated under
subparagraph 6(e)(ii) or (f)(ii), the officer may, with the
consent of that state, take any enforcement action—
It completely nullifies this entire agreement. It waters down
our existing provisions. If we have a foreign vessel fishing in
our waters illegally in the NAFTA regulatory area, before we can
proceed with enforcement action we must get the consent of the
flag state. They will argue that that has to be in there because
it is part of the UN fisheries agreement.
Let me go back to the enabling legislation, Bill C-96, which was
introduced by the former fisheries minister back in April 1997.
He introduced the enabling legislation for the same UN agreement.
This is the enforcement section which he intended:
A protection officer may, subject to any regulations made under
subparagraph 6(e)(iii), arrest without warrant any person who the
officer suspects on reasonable grounds has committed an offence
under this act.
That is our difficulty. This makes it meaningless. It waters
down our position. In fact the Premier of Newfoundland, Mr.
Tobin, has written letters to the committee with respect to this
very issue. His concern is why we would water down our current
position.
We have amendments which would correct that and we would ask the
government to look at them. What we are asking under the
amendments we put forward is to give the minister the power of
consent. In other words, if there is a foreign vessel fishing in
our waters in the NAFTA regulatory area, that enforcement could
be taken with the minister's consent. We are saying, in these
circumstances, let us have a clause that if this exact situation
existed enforcement officials would have to contact the
department and, with the consent of the minister, they could take
enforcement action. Right now they have to go to the flag state.
The member for Vancouver Quadra talked about a very colourful
moment. Let me read a paragraph from Michael Harris' book
Lament for an Ocean. This takes us back to 1995:
It was the other shot that was heard around the world. The
50-calibre machine-gun burst from the Cape Roger, three in
all, marked the first time since Confederation that Canada had
fired on another country in defence of the national interest.
When the order came to open fire, the officers aboard the
fisheries patrol vessel were so taken aback, they asked that the
command be repeated. The faithful words crackled once more over
the ship's radio: An initial burst was to be fired over the bow
of the Spanish trawler Estai, the next rounds into her
screw sixty seconds later if she refused to stop.
That was Mr. Tobin who did that. We had illegal fishing. What
we ask is that this legislation protect our sovereignty and our
interests. The issue we keep coming back to is that we have to
get the consent of the flag state. That waters it down.
I have read the provision, word for word. We have to get the
consent of the flag state to take enforcement action. What I ask
is that we amend that section so that officers on the high seas,
with the consent of the minister, can take enforcement action.
1350
That would correct this fundamental flaw in the bill. Again,
the intent is worthwhile. But if we correct that fundamental
flaw, put that power into the minister's hands in this rare
exception, then we could take enforcement measures against
foreign vessels.
I want to touch on one other thing. I will be quick because I
would like to give a couple of minutes to my friend from
Yorkton—Melville.
We have laws for foreign vessels so we can protect our
sovereignty, but what is even more troubling is that in British
Columbia, in the town of Ucluelet, our government is giving
Canadian fish away to foreign nations. Foreign nations are
fishing in our waters. This bill does nothing about that issue,
even though it was brought up over and over again in an east
coast report.
We now have a piece of legislation, an international agreement,
with respect to foreign fishing. However, I would encourage our
government to really look on both coasts at what foreign nations
are doing inside our waters, both on the processing and the
fishing side, to ensure that we take action and give fishermen on
both coasts priority to this resource. Our fishermen should get
first crack. Unemployed fishermen on both coasts do not know how
they are going to pay their mortgages or make ends meet, and yet
we have foreigners processing our fish and fishing in our waters.
If it is possible, I would like to share the couple of minutes
that are left to me with the member for Yorkton—Melville.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands is requesting the unanimous consent of the
House to give the member for Yorkton—Melville the last two
minutes of his allotted time. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was hoping to get this time at the beginning of the
debate to outline for the various members what is happening and
how things are going.
As members know, we reverted to orders of the day today. A bill
was being debated that had been supported by the majority of MPs
in this House. It had been sent to committee where the Liberals
and the NDP killed it. That bill was on consecutive sentencing.
It was something which nine out of ten Canadians supported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are debating
report stage of Bill C-27. If the member for Yorkton—Melville
does not have words that are germane to that bill, he is out of
order.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to speak to the first two amendments to Bill C-27 which
were proposed by the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.
The first proposed amendment is to include in Bill C-27 the
general principles of article 5 of the United Nations fisheries
agreement. The second, as members know, is to add an
interpretation clause to the bill.
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate on a sound
piece of legislation that clears the way for the ratification of
an essential international agreement. The bill amends the
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to
enable Canada to implement certain provisions of the UN fisheries
agreement.
Ratification of this agreement and, more importantly, its full
implementation are crucial to the conservation of straddling and
highly migratory fish stocks. The agreement will not come into
force until 30 nations have ratified it. So far 19 nations have
done so, but Canada's name is not yet among them.
It is important that we move forward with the passage of Bill
C-27. Once Canada has ratified the agreement we will be in a
much stronger position to urge others to do the same.
Canadians across the country, and certainly people in my riding
of Waterloo—Wellington, want to see the resources of the sea
protected. No one wants to see a repetition of the devastation
caused by the collapse of the Atlantic groundfish stocks.
As important as this bill is, the democratic process cannot be
hurried. The government has, accordingly, given full
consideration to the concerns raised by members of the opposition
parties in committee. However, in the case of the first two
amendments proposed by the hon. member the government cannot
agree.
1355
The first would include in Bill C-27 the general principles of
article 5 of the UN fisheries agreement and I would like to first
speak to this proposed amendment.
When Canada ratifies the UNFA, which will happen as soon as Bill
C-27 is passed and the requisite regulations are made, Canada
will be bound by the obligations and the responsibilities
provided by that, including the general principles found in
article 5 of the UNFA.
Canada pushed for the inclusion of these principles in that
agreement during negotiation of the agreement. We used, as a
basis for these principles, our Canadian fisheries management
policies and practices, and I think that is important to note.
Canada, therefore, already has in place scientific and fisheries
management policies and practices which implement these
principles.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has, for instance,
adopted a precautionary approach as a policy objective. I would
like to note at this time the obligations for UNFA parties, which
include that we adopt measures to ensure long term sustainability
of fish stocks, that we ensure the use of best scientific
evidence, that we assess the impacts of fishing, that we adopt
conservation and management measures, that we minimize pollution,
that we take measures to prevent or eliminate overfishing, that
we take into account the interests of subsistence fishers, that
we collect and share data concerning fishing, that we conduct
scientific research and, finally, that we implement and enforce
conservation and management measures. Many of these obligations
are met through DFO's process of developing integrated fisheries
management plans for individual fisheries in our land.
Canada will continue to co-operate with other fishing nations
and coastal states, as UNFA provides, in order to implement all
those principles through decisions taken within regional
fisheries organizations to which Canada is a party, such as NAFO
and ICCAT.
As hon. members can see, the first proposed amendment is not
necessary as the amendment of the principles contained in the
UNFA does not require specific authority in the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act. Canada has been and continues to apply these
principles through the application of existing and revised
fisheries management policies and practices, and we would on this
basis urge the House to vote against this first motion.
I understand that I am out of time. I wonder if I would be
allowed to come back later to deal with the second amendment.
The Speaker: Yes, the member is not out of time. As a matter
of fact, you have about five and a half minutes left.
However, I thought I would intervene now and you can bring your
arguments to bear on your second topic as you see fit. You will
be recognized when we return to orders of the day.
As it is almost 2 p.m., we will proceed to Statements by
Members, and I will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the arrest and forcible transfer to jurisdiction of a national
criminal court of the Kurdish leader, Abdullah Ocalan, raises the
possibility for the Canadian government to make use of our
excellent diplomatic relations abroad to offer our good offices
in having Canadian observers present at any future trial
processes and to offer to provide additional legal counsel from
Canada, if that would be relevant.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a serious situation developing within the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police.
The plan to eliminate some 1,000 RCMP positions is very
disturbing. What is even more disturbing is that half of these
positions are to be left vacant in British Columbia.
To open up the Regina training centre for four groups of 25
trainees each, for a total of 100 new officers a year, is an
inadequate token.
RCMP detachments in rural British Columbia are seriously
understaffed and overworked. Investigations per member are at
record numbers. The personal and health consequences for them is
frightening. What happens when a violent situation erupts and
there is no backup available?
This is a serious problem with long term implications. The
Mounties are unable to provide Canadians with basic services, yet
they are still expected to target long term organized crime and
to support the new gun control implementation.
We need our Mounties in full force. I call upon the government
to act now to restore staffing and funding so that Canadians from
coast to coast can have the police—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Paul's.
* * *
TUBERCULOSIS
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to mark World TB day.
Dr. Brundtland, director general of the World Health
Organization, said yesterday:
Tuberculosis, which many of us believed would disappear in our
lifetimes, has staged a frightening comeback.
Today TB kills more adults than AIDS, malaria and all other
tropical diseases combined.
1400
It is the first disease to be classified as a global emergency
by the WHO. This is not just a developing world problem. In
Canada our aboriginal population suffers at a rate seven times
greater than the rest of the population. We need to treat this
disease seriously.
I thank Dr. David Brandling-Bennett, deputy director of the Pan
American Health Organization; Dr. Howard Njoo, director of
tuberculosis prevention and control at Health Canada's LCDC; Dr.
Neil Haywood, director of immigration health policy for
Citizenship and Immigration Canada; Duane Etienne, health
promotion officer for the Assembly of First Nations; and Deirdre
Freiheit, chief operating officer and manager of government and
corporate affairs for the Canadian Lung Association for their
enlightening presentations—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nunavut.
* * *
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I speak for the last time as a member from the Northwest
Territories. When I return to the House I shall be the member
from Nunavut, Canada's third territory, and the map of Canada
will have been redrawn to show the new boundaries.
Last night friends enjoyed a small preview of what the
festivities will be like throughout Nunavut next Thursday, April
1. My Nunavut celebration was an evening of throat singers,
country food, drum dancers, and traditional games and clothing. I
thank everyone who participated in making the evening so special,
and most of all for their continued support throughout the
process.
I look forward to next Thursday and I know Canadians will
welcome their third territory with open arms. It is a momentous
occasion of which all Canadians can be proud as we begin to make
footprints in new snow.
* * *
[Translation]
CASINOS ON CRUISE SHIPS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, thanks to the action of the Canadian government, cruise
ships operating casinos may continue to do so until they are
within five nautical miles of port.
Previously, they had to shut down casino operations as soon as
they entered Canadian territorial waters, or in other words at
Anticosti Island.
This amendment to the Criminal Code, which came into effect on
March 15, will allow casinos on cruise ships to continue to
operate in Canadian waters.
I would point out as well that the ports of Quebec City and
Montreal draw some 75,000 cruise ship passengers annually, and
they generate tourist revenue of close to $12 million.
* * *
[English]
CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
April is Cancer Awareness Month. An estimated 129,000 new cases
of cancer and 62,700 deaths from cancer occurred in 1998.
The most frequently diagnosed cancers are breast cancer and
prostate cancer. The incidence of breast cancer has risen
steadily over the past decade but the mortality rate has been
slightly decreasing.
Early detection techniques are responsible for our progress in
beating cancer. Cancer can be beaten. Lung cancer remains the
leading cause of death among men and women. Keeping Canadian
youth and children from smoking is the most effective cancer
prevention.
My past involvement with the Canadian Cancer Society makes me
proud to extend a special thanks to all volunteers. Let us give
generously when the Canadian Cancer Society knocks on our door.
We can achieve our goals through research, education, patient
services and advocacy for healthy public policy. Cancer can be
beaten.
* * *
[Translation]
STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
marks the launching of the fourth edition of the student summer
employment exchange program.
Four years ago, we initiated this little pilot project, which
now provides more than 800 young people with an opportunity to
discover another region of Canada, to learn a second language
and appreciation of another culture, and to earn a little money
toward their studies.
This project has become what it is today thanks to the
contributions of many different parties. I want to particularly
mention the involvement of the many host families and employers
throughout Canada, and the more than 100 parliamentarians of all
political stripes.
Our young people are the wealth of our future. Our young people
are the best ambassadors of this program.
They are our pride, and they will make tomorrow's Canada an
extraordinary country in which mutual understanding lies at the
heart of Canadian values.
* * *
COMMON CURRENCY
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March
15, the House of Commons rejected a motion from the Bloc
Quebecois proposing that a special committee of the House be
struck in order to consider the possibility of Canada's
participation in the creation of a pan-American monetary union.
Far from advocating the immediate adoption of a common currency,
our motion sought to provide elected representatives with an
opportunity to discuss this issue of the future.
1405
Instead of assuming its responsibilities, the Liberal Party, and
the NDP, resorted to acrimonious and falsely patriotic
arguments. Liberal backbenchers and NDP members spewed claptrap
and bafflegab all day long.
Today, the Senate begins examining this vital issue for the
future of Quebeckers and Canadians. This is the direct result of
the Liberals' lack of leadership, of the Liberals running out of
steam and getting weary.
By abdicating the legitimacy of the House of Commons in favour
of an obsolete and archaic institution like the Senate, the
Government of Canada is making a very telling demonstration to
its partners in the Americas of its lack of leadership and
vision, this on the eve of a new millennium.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week marked the 80th anniversary of the founding of the
Canadian Jewish Congress, a national representative organization
of the Jewish community of Canada.
In 1919 the upheaval of the first world war and the desperate
situation of Jews in eastern Europe contributed to the movement
in Canada to found a body that would represent the interest of
Canadian Jews and coordinate their efforts to send help to their
brothers overseas.
Democratically elected, nationally representative, CJC has
become one of Canada's foremost human rights organizations and a
voice for social justice, harmony and equity for all Canadians.
Over its eight decades it has become a model community advocacy
organization, blending its efforts on behalf of the Jewish
community of Canada seamlessly with its outstanding contributions
on issues of national scope and significance. Internationally
its vigorous promotion of global human rights and the elimination
of racism and discrimination everywhere complement its efforts on
behalf of the State of Israel and Jews around the world.
To CJC, I say happy anniversary. It has earned our admiration.
Yashar koach. May it go from strength to strength.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it has now been more than two months since the
possession of child pornography was made legal in British
Columbia. We still have more than a month to wait before the
court hears the appeal of the Shaw decision.
The Minister of Justice and her parliamentary secretary have
been consistent, if nothing else, as they falsely continue to
assure British Columbians that everything is under control.
Everything is not under control. We now have two child
pornographers walking the streets in B.C. because of the Shaw
decision. The second dismissal was even more galling, given that
the accused pleaded guilty to the charge but had to be released
because of Shaw.
I have recently received an RCMP intelligence report that
indicates the extent of the child pornography flooding into
British Columbia from outside the country. Yes, it is business
as usual for this element of sick, perverted behaviour in B.C.,
behaviour that is aided and abetted by a Liberal government that
refuses to act.
* * *
THE LATE EDMUND TOBIN ASSELIN
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to mark the passing yesterday of a
prominent citizen and lawyer from the West Island of Montreal and
a former member of the House, Mr. Edmund Tobin Asselin, who
served as the MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce from 1962 to 1965,
sitting for two years at the same time as his brother, Patrick
Tobin Asselin, the MP for Richmond—Wolfe in the province of
Quebec.
In addition to being twice elected to the House, in 1962 and
1963 Mr. Asselin served Canada as a flight lieutenant in the
Royal Canadian Air Force from 1940 to 1946.
[Translation]
After World War II, he had the distinction of sitting on
Montreal's municipal council from 1950 to 1962, before being
elected to the House of Commons.
[English]
Mr. Asselin is survived by his wife, Carmel, his six children
and his niece, Constable Janet Asselin, who is a member of the
House of Commons security service and on duty this afternoon in
the House gallery.
I would like to offer all my sympathy to the family.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the big oil companies have confirmed what every Canadian
consumer believes when they said to the National Post,
“When did costs have anything to do with gasoline pricing”.
The world crude oil price fell 60%, 17 months ago, but it took
15 long months for gas prices in Saskatchewan to drop even a
couple of cents. Now crude oil prices are rising slowly but it
only takes 15 hours for gas prices to jump right back again, an
unjustifiable gouging of Canadians.
The major oil companies brag that Canada has among the lowest
gas prices of the G-7 countries, but they do not tell Canadians
that we have the highest prices of any oil exporters. The gas
retail market in Canada is dominated by those four big elephants
that sing “It's every man for himself” to their tiny
competitors while they dance all over them, according to Tommy
Douglas.
The Competition Bureau is supposed to report soon on its
investigation on predatory gas pricing in Saskatchewan following
the complaint I made along with my leader and my NDP Saskatchewan
colleagues.
I call on the major oil refiners to quit gouging Canadians on
gas prices.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
DAFFODIL DAY
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, March
25, is Daffodil Day.
Organized by the Canadian Cancer Society, Daffodil Day has, for
almost 40 years, been a major fundraising activity for this
agency, whose goal is to wipe out cancer and improve the quality
of life of those who have the disease and of their families.
In Quebec alone last year, Daffodil Day raised over $1 million.
It is through the continuing generosity of Quebeckers and of
Canadians that the Canadian Cancer Society can provide material
and psychological support for the tens of thousands of
individuals struggling with this terrible disease and help fund
medical research.
Let us give generously. We may think that cancer is something
other people get, but life has a way of proving us wrong.
To all the Canadian Cancer Society volunteers, I say thank you
for your generosity and have a great Daffodil Day.
* * *
GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today,
Canadians of Hellenic origin join with 17.5 million Hellenes
around the world in celebrating the most important day in the
history of Greece, my country of origin, that is March 25, 1821,
Greek Independence Day.
[English]
Today I welcome to Ottawa and to Canada a group that has
travelled from Greece to participate in the various celebrations
organized in Montreal and Ottawa: Mrs. Maria Lambrou, deputy
mayor of Chalkidos; Ms. Pagona Theodorou and Ms. Fevronia
Kastani, members of the provincial chamber of commerce of Evoia;
and the Hellenic national organization whose goal is to preserve
and promote the authenticity of Greek dance and the genuineness
of Greek traditional dress.
I am proud of my roots. More important, I am proud of Canada
which allows for the respecting of the cultures and traditions of
all Canadians. I invite all members of the House to join in the
celebrations to celebrate this important day.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Greek]
* * *
[English]
RUN AGAINST RACISM
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House as a proud participant of
the 10th anniversary of Run Against Racism, its motto being
“Together we can make a difference.”
Last weekend the founder of this event, Henderson Paris, and
many residents of communities in Pictou County came together for
one common noble purpose: to heighten the awareness of racism in
these communities and throughout Canada.
This ultimately will help alleviate racism from society. People
of all ages and races came together to lend their support for
this worthwhile cause. This event was held in conjunction with
the International Day to Eliminate Racism and Discrimination
observed worldwide on March 21.
The goal of this annual marathon is commendable in its efforts
to eliminate racism everywhere. Efforts such as this touch on
the hearts and souls of every member of society from the youngest
to the most senior. We hope that one day the dreaded perils of
racism and discrimination will be eradicated completely.
I express sincere congratulations to Henderson Paris, a resident
of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, who started this marathon 10 years
ago. His efforts are applauded and admired. Next year's run will
be highlighted as part of New Glasgow's 125th birthday and
millennium celebrations. I encourage all—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Malpeque.
* * *
EAST WILTSHIRE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to congratulate the grade seven students of
East Wiltshire Intermediate School who recently won a national
anti-racism award sponsored by Heritage Canada and Much Music.
The anti-racism video produced by these students was one of 10
award winners chosen from almost 300 entries. The students used
their own time to write scripts and construct props for the one
minute video.
On March 21, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, five of these students, Erika Weeks, April
Walker, Elysse Roberts, Emilie Michellod and Meghan Harris, took
part in the awards program at Much Music studios in Toronto.
Once again, congratulations to all East Wiltshire students and
faculty involved. Their efforts and actions speak well to the
future as we attempt to eliminate racism from our society and
around the globe.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week members of the Canadian Police Association
told me that the people of Saskatchewan were losing faith in the
criminal justice system.
Do you want to know how bad it is? On February 20 the
Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation passed the following resolution
with 84% support:
Whereas the opposition to Bill C-68 continues to grow, and
whereas several provinces including Saskatchewan, have opted out
of enforcement and administration of the bill, and whereas the
federal government intends to use the RCMP to enforce C-68 in
spite of overwhelming opposition to this legislation in
Saskatchewan,
Be it resolved that the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation
recommends that the Government of Saskatchewan replace the RCMP
with a provincial police force that is more accountable to the
people of Saskatchewan.
If respect for the law erodes, the work of the police becomes
more difficult. Law-abiding gun owners in Saskatchewan are even
calling the RCMP the Chrétien cops. See what stupid ineffective
gun control laws do.
* * *
1415
RED CROSS
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, over the
past year the Red Cross has experienced many changes. However,
its fundamental commitment toward helping relieve human
suffering remains the same.
During last year's ice storm the Canadian Red Cross mobilized
some 3,300 staff and volunteers to help those affected by the
disaster. Last September it assisted with the Swissair crash off
Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia.
In addition to programs such as water safety, emergency services
and first aid, the Red Cross offers programs from homecare
support to abuse and suicide prevention programs.
Overseas the Canadian Red Cross is part of a network of 175 Red
Cross and Red Crescent societies and has sent relief workers on
many humanitarian missions.
The Canadian Red Cross would like to thank the Canadian public
which generously donated $6 million to its hurricane Mitch relief
fund.
I ask all hon. members to join me in proclaiming March as Red
Cross month.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday marked the first time that Canada was directly
involved in a major bombing attack since the Korean conflict.
Canadian pilots flew in the first wave of NATO air strikes
against Serbian military positions in Yugoslavia.
Will the government give us an update on what was achieved
yesterday, including a comment on the safety of Canadian
personnel involved?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our four Canadian CF-18s participated
with other aircraft in the air mission over Yugoslavia. They hit
targets as they were required to do. It was a successful
operation and they returned safely. We hope that in any future
missions they will also return safely.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the stated objective of the NATO air strikes is to
damage Serbia's capacity to make war, including making war
against innocent civilians in Kosovo.
Will the defence minister inform the House how long he expects
these NATO strikes to continue and at what point the mission will
have been considered to be a military success?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has quite
correctly pointed out that the purpose of the mission is to
diminish the capabilities of the air force and other components
of the military of Yugoslavia so as to stop the advances they are
making against the people of Kosovo.
Hopefully the air campaign will come to a conclusion as quickly
as possible, with the Milosevic government coming back to the
negotiating table and signing the agreement so that we can get on
with implementing a diplomatic and political solution.
We do not know, though, the precise time that will take. We
take it a step at a time and are hopeful that will occur soon.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada also has a longstanding reputation as a peaceful
country and our participation in military action against Serbian
military positions should not mean that we cease diplomatic and
political efforts to find a solution.
Is the Prime Minister or the foreign affairs minister
participating in any new political and diplomatic efforts to
bring about a peaceful end to the crisis in Kosovo?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the foreign affairs
minister and all of us are anxious to get back to the negotiating
table as quickly as possible.
Overtures have been continually made, the most recent being by
Mr. Holbrooke when he was in Belgrade, to get a peaceful
resolution of this matter as quickly as possible.
We are there because we are trying to stop a humanitarian
disaster. We simply cannot allow evil to take over and good
people do nothing. We must ensure that this genocide comes to an
end. We do need a political solution quickly and hopefully the
bombing will have the effect of bringing them to the table.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
me quote from the Industry Canada estimates released this
morning:
We have had the lowest rate of growth in productivity among the
G-7 countries for the past 25 years.
This is a damning indictment of the policies of the finance
minister.
1420
Is he proud of the high tax, high debt record of his government,
of the falling standards of living he has contributed to? Is he
proud of that?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me quote from the same report:
Canada is well equipped to be a leader in the knowledge based
economy of the 21st century. We have the people, the
institutions and the research excellence. We know the challenges
that we face, and the opportunities afforded to us. By
mobilizing our resources, we can be a leader in the new economy.
By working together, we can ensure continuing success as we
embark on the new millennium.
The policies we have been pursuing over the last five and a half
years are the very policies that will turn around that gap and
successfully lead us into the 21st century.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
study after study points to the feckless performance of the
industry minister and the finance minister.
A month ago the deputy minister of industry said the gap between
Canada and the United States is widening. It is interesting that
now when the pressure is on the industry minister gets up and
tries to defend this terrible record of his government.
Again, is the government proud of a record that is destroying
Canada's standard of living?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the biggest danger to the standard of living when we
assumed office was that the Canadian government was running
deficits of $42 billion a year. It has been reversing that
trend, the key to building success in the next century.
Meanwhile we work hard on issues like increasing R and D
performance in the private sector, encouraging the adoption of
new technologies, encouraging training in the workforce. These
are the things that will make a difference, all of which have
been measures that party has consistently been opposed to.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, now
that the air strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
have begun, a number of questions arise, particularly the
question of Canadian participation in expanded military
operations.
Will the Minister of National Defence tell us whether he intends
to support expanding the Canadian contribution to NATO's
military effort if necessary and, if so, what action might be
taken in the short term?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have not been asked for an additional
contribution over what we have there at the moment.
We have 6 CF-18s and approximately 130 personnel. We also have
approximately 100 personnel working out of Germany under the early
warning system known as AWACS. They are all part of this mission
as well. We also indicated that we would send ground troops if
and when there is a peace agreement signed. That would be
premature at this point.
We have a contribution in keeping with the contribution of the
other NATO nations save and except the United States which has a
very substantial contribution. We have professional expert
people there who are well trained and who are doing a terrific
job.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
another question Quebeckers and Canadians have has to do with
the risk of the war spreading to other countries in the region.
Could the Minister of National Defence tell us what the Canadian
government is doing within NATO and the OSCE, and as a member of
the UN security council to ensure that the conflict will be
confined to Yugoslavia and other countries not dragged into a
deadly spiral?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is every effort to contain the
matter.
For example, the forces in Bosnia are on special alert.
Precautionary measures have been taken. They are also on the
border of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and Kosovo
where the UN mission unfortunately has come to an end. There are
NATO troops there and every precautionary measure is being taken
to prevent this conflict from spreading. We will try to bring it
to an end as quickly as possible.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in time of
war, we need to give a thought to the terrible conditions
civilians are experiencing. Kosovo has no lack of examples of
such conditions.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does Canada
intend to play a lead role on the humanitarian level, in order
to ensure that measures to provide aid to the many present and
future refugees who are victims of the Kosovo conflict are put
in place?
1425
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have already committed in excess of $3 million Canadian in the
form of humanitarian aid to the refugees, and are prepared to
provide more assistance.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to know from the government whether any Canadian nationals are
still in Kosovo, and if so what steps have been, or will be,
taken to help and protect them?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): At the moment, Mr.
Speaker, there are no Canadians in that area.
We trust that the conflict will be over soon, so that we will be
able to send over representatives to facilitate humanitarian
aid.
* * *
[English]
INDUSTRY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
Airlines, Metronet, Canadarm, the list goes on. Slowly but
surely American firms are devouring our high tech industries.
Today it is Ameritech acquiring 20% of Bell Canada. Head offices
go south, R and D goes south, Canada's productivity goes south.
What will it take for the government to abandon its don't care
policy with respect to Canada's economic sellout?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the acquisition of an interest in Bell Canada is what
the member is commenting on. As she well knows, there are
foreign investment limits in our telecommunications sector. We
are not proposing to change those.
The growth that is happening in the telecommunications business
is increasingly North America-wide. We should be looking at the
job and growth opportunities that will exist for our companies as
they expand into the U.S. market. I remind the hon. member of
some important high tech acquisitions that have occurred going
the other direction, Nortel's acquisition of Bay Networks for
example.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we see
it again, the government's “like, whatever” economic policy.
Let us look at the facts. In 1994 the sellout was $8 billion. By
1998 it was up to $50 billion. In information technology the
sell-off increased sixfold in just one year. Does the minister
refute these Industry Canada figures or will he admit there is a
direct relationship between Canadian control and growth in the R
and D sector?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): What is
happening increasingly, in particular in technology related
sectors, is that the world is becoming smaller and much of the
market is global and international. It might be interesting for
the leader of the NDP to realize that while investment in Canada
has been growing, Canadian investment abroad has also been
growing, so much so that in 1997 income from Canadian direct
investment abroad reached $11.5 billion, the highest figure ever,
which is almost equal to the amount that has been paid on foreign
direct investment into Canada in the same year.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
Tuesday the Prime Minister appointed a new minister for the
homeless yet this new minister has been given no program budget
and no research budget. Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain
why the Prime Minister appointed a new minister for the homeless
and failed to give this new minister the tools to get the job
done? Is this just window dressing?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we put up the money
at the beginning of December last year. We added an additional
$50 million to the RRAP program. We did not wait for a
conference. We financed the Anne Golden report. We participated
financially in today's conference in Toronto. Our ministers are
there and we will continue to listen to Canadians in need so we
can answer their needs.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, that
is just more talk and what the homeless need is more action from
this government. The finance minister mentioned the word
homeless in his budget speech but no funding was actually
provided to deal with this very serious problem. Since then we
have seen the appointment of a new minister for the homeless and
she has not been provided with the resources needed to get the
job done.
Why does this government only talk about the serious issue of
the homeless instead of doing something for the homeless?
1430
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should have listened to the very
informed answer of the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation.
We have not been waiting for conferences. We have not just been
talking. We have already put money on the table months before
this conference. We are ready to take action, as we have made
clear by what we have already done. This has to involve a
partnership with provincial and municipal governments. We have
to hear from them. They have to be involved as well if real
action is to be taken to help the homeless.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
they seem to be house cleaning over at industry. Anyone who has
ever said that our standard of living is too low or taxes are too
high has been told to change his mind.
Reports are being censored, conference presentations cancelled
and diaries are being revised. But before the purge, the deputy
minister was able to say at a conference that “improvement of
Canada's cost competitiveness has been entirely due to the
depreciating dollar”.
Does the minister agree with his deputy that our low dollar is
the only thing masking our high taxes and high debt?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as usual the Reform Party tries to simplify a complex
issue and to confuse people about what it is.
If the hon. member would look at the speech the deputy minister
gave, it is very consistent with the Empire Club speech that I
gave.
We acknowledge that productivity is a key to growing a stronger
economy, to creating economic growth and to increasing the
standard of living in Canada. The issue that the hon. member
raises, trying to simplify it to simply one or two minor
questions, is misleading. The reality is that we have to look at
issues like research and development, like the commercialization
of scientific research in universities, like—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is the deputy minister who appears to be simplifying this by
saying that our standard of living is low, taxes are too high and
our depreciating dollar seems to be totally responsible for this.
That is the minister's own deputy minister. It is sort of like
Pravda which said that wheat production in the Soviet Union
was just absolutely terrific when in fact there were food
shortages there.
The minister's deputy minister is telling the truth. I would
like to ask the minister again. Does he agree with his deputy
minister or not? Is he going to send him away for political
indoctrination?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I do not agree with is the foolish representation
of those views by the hon. member for Edmonton North.
If the hon. member had the faintest understanding of what she is
talking about, she would be standing in shame and saying that she
regrets that she voted against support for research and
development in the private sector. She would say she is sorry
that she has not put a focus on the lack of training in Canadian
firms. She would say she understands the years of Tory
governments that she supported ran up a debt load that is still
burdening this country.
Those are the real causes behind Canada's productivity
challenge.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the 1993
election campaign, the Liberal government promised to fight
poverty in Canada.
The number of poor children in Canada has increased from one
million to one and a half million under the Liberals.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the government
intend to act on my proposal that a position of poverty
commissioner be created in order to more effectively fight this
terrible phenomenon, poverty?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what our government wanted to
do, for the very purpose of fighting child poverty, was to
bypass structures and appoint individuals to look after it.
I think the member's idea is interesting, and we should look at
it, but let us look at what we have done as the government.
We have invested $3 billion a year in the national child
benefit. These investments will come back each year. We
established this national benefit in co-operation with the
provinces so that they too are contributing to the fight against
poverty.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada has a
human rights commissioner, an official languages commissioner
and an environment commissioner to ensure these matters get more
appropriate attention.
Is poverty not of sufficient concern to get this government to
agree to the appointment of a poverty commissioner, right now?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have done a whole pile of
things. We have improved our employment insurance system by
giving the most disadvantaged unemployed access to family
income, a family income supplement, specifically to help fight
child poverty.
1435
We have introduced specific measures to put money into the
pockets of those responsible for children. I think there is
already an improvement in the situation at the moment. In the
coming years, I think it will be even greater.
* * *
[English]
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this government trumpeted the certainty and stability
brought by the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement. The very
opposite has happened. The newest U.S. attempt is to restrict
Canadian exports of painted and manufactured wood product by
reclassifying it as softwood lumber. This could cost thousands
of jobs.
Why is the minister not fighting this unjust reclassification?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yet again the Reform Party is late. Not
only are we fighting but we have already consulted the American
side. We have told them that we will be proceeding through the
dispute mechanism system as well as taking this to the World
Customs Organization.
We are trying to work within the confines of this agreement. But
we do not accept the American intention to expand the agreement
into areas that quite frankly are unfair. We will, and have
already started the claim.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is going through the motions. NAFTA phased
out duties on value added products to create free trade. That is
why U.S. special interests want to classify these products so
they become subject to restrictions under the softwood lumber
agreement. The softwood lumber agreement has already cost
Canadian jobs and now more are threatened.
Will the minister commit to not renew the agreement when it
expires?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should know that a few years
ago four provinces and the entire industry recommended to the
federal government that we enter into this agreement. The member
also knows that I have instructed our officials, two years before
the agreement lapses, to consult with the same industry and the
provinces to try to gather a national consensus on where we go
from here. Will they want to continue the agreement? Do they
want changes? Do they want to have no agreement?
We are engaged in that process. It is the member that is going
through the motions.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
when we ask questions of the Minister of Industry on the federal
government's shipbuilding policy, he always says that the
government is doing enough and that its programs are working.
But surely there must be something wrong, since Canadian
shipowners have their ships built abroad.
Instead of telling us that everything is fine when it is not the
case, is the Minister of Industry willing to take a closer look
at what is not working with his support measures for the
shipbuilding industry, and improve his policy, so that it will
finally yield results?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are not prepared to give subsidies to the shipbuilding industry.
I also want to reiterate that we have made changes in recent
years, particularly as regards our support to exports. EDC
changed the rules and increased support.
If the hon. member really wants to change things, he should give
us examples which do not involve subsidies.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I will provide one example to the minister.
In 1998, the Minister of Finance rammed Bill C-28 through the
House, to help shipowners.
When will the Minister of Finance introduce a Bill C-29 to help
Canada's shipyard workers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
already have tax shelters to help the shipbuilding industry.
We have systems to help them with regard to exports. There is
already a lot of support provided to this industry.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government tells us the Nisga'a treaty is a done
deal. Yet the minister of fisheries refuses to allow his
bureaucrats to brief the fisheries committee on the impact the
treaty will have on the fishery. What does the minister have to
hide?
1440
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are working diligently to
prepare legislation to bring to this House to debate the very
important and historic Nisga'a treaty. We are working on all
aspects. We will have good legislation that truly reflects the
treaty. I am looking forward to good and fulsome debate in this
House.
I would only ask the members opposite to consider what their
side of this story is and to realize that they will not bring
certainty or investment to British Columbia. Their point of view
will only bring chaos.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the deal is signed but I want to tell the House what the
problem is. The department of Indian affairs and the department
of fisheries cannot agree on what the treaty means for fish.
Why did this government sign a deal when it did not know what it
meant? Why is it prepared to ram it through parliament without
knowing what it means?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this side of the House knows
precisely what writing modern treaties in British Columbia is all
about. It is about bringing certainty to that province. It is
clarifying who has what jurisdiction and who has what authority.
It is about making investments in a province so its economy can
very much appreciate and benefit from the settling of these land
claims.
This government knows precisely what it is doing. It is that
side of the House that has no idea how to reconcile aboriginal
rights in a modern Canada. All that side would suggest is to
bring chaos.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in its
annual report, the Canadian Human Rights Commission again
criticizes the delay tactics being used by Treasury Board in the
matter of pay equity.
While employees have been deprived for years now of equal pay,
the government is spending time and money on various approaches
in order to put off the inevitable.
Can the President of the Treasury Board acknowledge his error
today, commit to withdrawal of the appeal application, and pay
what is owing once and for all?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only is
the government in favour of pay equity, but it is the one that
proclaimed it and the one that wrote it into Canadian
legislation. The government has already paid out more than $1
billion for pay equity.
Our experts are clear, however: the human rights tribunal is
wrong in its judgment. We have filed an appeal, as unions do
when they believe the courts to be wrong, and we have to wait
for a ruling by experts in the field in order to find out what
portion the Canadian public really needs to pay.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs, I travelled the country last year
and learned firsthand that many of the men and women in our
internationally respected armed forces work for low wages and
live in substandard housing. Hopefully the concerned and
compassionate Minister of National Defence will tell us what he
is going to do to improve their quality of life.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian forces are an important
national organization. They contribute a great deal to the life
and security of this country and deserve to have fair
compensation for a reasonable standard of living.
I was very pleased to table today the government's response to
the 89 recommendations of the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs. It did a fine job. We agree with
most of all its recommendations.
We will be putting into effect for example pay increases come
the first of April this year. As an example, for privates the
committee recommended some 10% and we are making it 14.4%.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
business people in the Vancouver Island community of Ucluelet
have spent millions of dollars upgrading their fish processing
facilities, yet we hear this government is about to sell out on
them. In fact, it is going to give this fish to foreign nations,
Polish vessels offshore to process this fish.
My question is very simple. Before the government gives any
Canadian fish to any foreign nations to process offshore, will it
ensure that every single Canadian processor has priority access
to this resource and no foreign nation will get fish before
Canadians to process?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should
know that our objective is to Canadianize the fishery.
The current quotas that Cubans are fishing are Canadian quotas.
Foreign participation by Cuba this year, 1999, in the silver hake
fishery is low. The catch has been reduced from 55,000 to
30,000.
1445
In terms of the ships that the Cubans are building, the Cubans
have been made fully aware that there is a three year program in
place setting quotas that will end in the year 2000 and it is
uncertain if those quotas will be renewed after that date.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have
yet another example of Liberal interference with tax dollars at
the St. John's Port Corporation.
The Liberal appointed CEO, Sean Hanrahan, tore down the old
building and is spending millions to put up a new one with
offices bigger than the premier's. He ignored the request of
clients to invest in dock improvements, he ignored the request of
the mayor and increased the already high vacancy rates in St.
John's.
Why was this transport money not spent on docks rather than on
these posh new offices? For a Liberal—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Industry.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as acting Minister of Transport today I will simply have
to take note of the hon. member's question. I am sure the
minister will want to respond to him directly.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, our
military is actively engaged by way of air strikes in the
conflict in Kosovo. Concern has been expressed that this present
action may not achieve its goal and the conflict may escalate to
require ground troops.
Will the minister assure the House that, should NATO make a
formal request of Canada for an expanded commitment, this request
will be brought before parliament for a debate and a vote?
We spent all night long debating the government's legislation to
send public servants back to work. Surely we can and should
debate any expanded commitment of military action in Kosovo.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no contemplation of sending
ground forces into Kosovo under the current conditions where
there is no peace agreement. There would have to be a peace
agreement before we could send in a peacekeeping mission.
If there was any substantive expansion or change in our role
with respect to this NATO led effort, then we would of course
want to consult with members of parliament.
* * *
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government has tabled its response to the SCONDVA report on
quality of life in the Canadian forces. That report had a number
of recommendations concerning the housing crisis.
While recommendations concerning pay and allowances have been
accepted and are being implemented, many of the housing
recommendations have only been accepted in principle, subject to
operational or training imperatives.
Will the minister advise the House as to why the housing
recommendations are not being given top priority in the best
interest of military families?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): They are, Mr. Speaker. We in fact are putting $40
million more this year into the repair of the married quarters
for our personnel.
We recognize that there is a lot of substandard housing. We are
going to move immediately to fix that up, but we are also
developing long range plans. We are looking to reorganize our
Canadian forces housing authority to give it more of the tools it
needs to do an effective job and to make sure our people are
properly housed.
We have long term plans, but we have plans for $40 million
additional dollars to immediately go toward repairs.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
support our forces and the NATO action, but in the middle of the
war the government is rotating home our CF-18s and crews from
Italy and is replacing them with Cold Lake based fighters and
crews.
Obviously there has been no planning or forethought to this
military operation. Canadians are left wondering what military
genius came up with this poorly timed plan.
Why are Canadian forces rotating the CF-18s now, or is this a
back door chance to increase our CF-18 presence in the theatre?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it wrong. We
originally were going to rotate at the end of March, but that was
set months ago, before we knew what action we would be involved
in at this point in time. It is hardly the time to do that.
But eventually we will need to replace the people who are there
with others. That is an operational question that will be dealt
with at the appropriate time and it will be determined by the
chief of defence staff.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada is off to war, without the slightest
thought for the Canadian forces personnel in Bosnia.
One of the serious risks is that the war in Kosovo could spread
to Bosnia, and thus the Canadian troops would find themselves in
the midst of open warfare.
I wish to ask the minister what steps he has taken to reinforce
Canadian troops in Bosnia, should the hostilities spread.
1450
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I prefer to think of this as a
humanitarian mission, an effort to stop what is being done to the
Kosovars, as opposed to a war.
The troops that we have in Bosnia have taken extra precautionary
measures to strengthen their security. We have done everything
to reduce the risks so that our troops will be as safe and secure
as possible in that kind of environment.
* * *
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
A Canadian delegation recently attended the United Nations
fisheries and agricultural organization meeting in Rome. What
was accomplished in terms of protecting the world's oceans from
destructive fishing, from overfishing and from pollution?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
question that the world's oceans are under threat from
overfishing capacity and pollution. We have to put international
pressures on those areas.
In Rome, Canada pressed all nations to enact the UNFA agreement
by the year 2000 to protect global high seas and migratory
fish stocks. Canada set the tone at the FAO. We have led the
debate in terms of conservation of the fisheries.
Our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will continue to provide
leadership not only domestically, but globally and
internationally around the world.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is the
first anniversary of the health minister's two tier hepatitis C
compensation plan, but there is no celebrating.
Is the health minister proud of this? After one year of legal
wrangling no victim has received one single cent.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this government is very proud that there is an agreement in
principle with respect to a proposal for thousands of Canadians
who were infected between 1986 and 1990. We expect that will
soon go before the courts for approval.
What is more is that this government has offered over $500
million to people outside that period to ensure they get the care
they need. That is what this is about, providing care to people
when they are ill.
* * *
[Translation]
DAIRY PRODUCERS
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week
the WTO ruled in favour of the United States and New Zealand in
the matter of milk exports, which is contrary to the interests
of Quebec dairy producers.
My question is for the Minister for International Trade. Does
the federal government intend to appeal the decision by the WTO,
or is it going to lower its arms and drop Quebec dairy
producers?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. We only received
the report last week, on March 17.
Yesterday the federal government met with the stakeholders from
the dairy industry. As well, it has consulted all of the
provinces.
I am now in a position on behalf of my colleague the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Government of Canada to say
quite clearly that indeed it is our intention to make an appeal
and thereby stand four-square behind the dairy industry.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
finally, the Prime Minister has recognized the problem of the
homeless and appointed a minister responsible. He has now to
provide her with the resources necessary to resolve the problem.
The new minister must also have the freedom to criticize the
government policy that gives rise to poverty.
In order to ensure real success, is the government prepared to
strike a parliamentary committee where all the parties will be
represented to assist the minister in her job and to make sure
that the problems of the poor and the homeless are eliminated
and not simply hidden under a title?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has suggested
the creation of a new parliamentary committee.
A very legitimate request, but I must remind her there is a
procedure for creating a parliamentary committee. The leaders
of all the parties meet, discuss such suggestions, which are
then submitted to the House. They are not made by the minister
responsible for a portfolio. The decision is taken by the House
collectively following recommendations by the leaders of the
individual parties.
* * *
[English]
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the acting Minister of Transport.
Twelve years ago Department of Transport officials identified
what they called a major safety concern at the Kelowna airport.
The safety concern was that air traffic controllers cannot see
the runways.
1455
In 1989 the Department of Transport issued a temporary waiver to
allow the airport to continue operations on the condition that a
new tower be built. Ten years later there is no new tower, no
plans, no nothing.
Considering that Kelowna is one of the fastest growing airports
in Canada, will the minister now do whatever is necessary to stop
the delays and address what his own department calls a major
safety concern?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course the first concern of the Department of
Transport, and I might add its minister, is the safety of
Canadian air travellers. While of course I am unaware of the
particulars of this situation, I am sure that upon investigation,
if the minister finds that the situation indeed has not been
improved, he will want to instruct that those improvements occur
with the appropriate haste.
* * *
WILDLIFE
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in two weeks it is going to be National Wildlife Week
and Canadians are saying that they are very concerned about the
state of wildlife and its habitat.
[Translation]
Could the Minister of the Environment tell us what measures she
is taking to protect wildlife?
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April 4 to 10 marks National
Wildlife Week. The 1999 theme is “Home is Where there is
Habitat”.
[Translation]
Environment Canada is working in conjunction with its provincial
and territorial partners. We are protecting the habitats thanks
to a network of programs across Canada. A bill to protect
endangered species will soon be introduced.
[English]
Together Canadians can work to ensure that future generations
inherit a country at least as rich and diverse in wildlife as the
one we enjoy today.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the immigration system is broken. In 1993 Dr. Sharif Karimzada,
a former Afghani diplomat, was granted refugee status here in
Canada. Later the government retroactively determined that he
was no longer a refugee and was going to be deported.
He was here to plead his case in Ottawa this week. I am
wondering if this government's policy is to retroactively change
the law to ship people out like Dr. Karimzada who deserve our
protection here in Canada.
Is the government going to do that? Is it going to send him
back to Afghanistan to face certain death, yes or no?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Immigration Act is quite clear on persons who were senior
officials of certain governments which engaged in crimes against
humanity and are inadmissible to Canada. These provisions have
been put into place to protect the safety of Canadians.
If the Reform Party really cares about the integrity of the
system, then it should be concerned that all inadmissible
individuals to this country be removed.
* * *
[Translation]
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian Human Rights Commission just released its annual
report.
In that document, the commission's chair, Michelle
Falardeau-Ramsey, says: “Unfortunately, the actual situation of
people with disabilities has again deteriorated in 1998”.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how his government
intends to remedy the situation of people with disabilities?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure this House that our
government has truly identified disabled people as a priority.
I was very pleased that we released a document prepared jointly
with the provinces, to truly help people with disabilities
integrate the labour market.
I want to point out that we have given a high priority to the
whole issue of employability. I am pleased to inform the House
that this morning I signed a bilateral agreement with the
Government of Quebec on the employability of disabled people.
The agreement was signed today by Mrs. Marois and myself.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for the past year Canadian lumber
companies have been able to ship value added, rougher headed
lumber products which are used in the exterior trim and finish of
building projects to the United States without paying U.S.
duties.
1500
Last week U.S. customs announced that it was planning to
reclassify Canadian exports of rougher headed products and
subject them to strict quota limitations, thereby putting
thousands of jobs in British Columbia at risk.
Will the government commit today to fight this blatant attempt
to break international tariff rules and to ensure market access
for these important products and protect B.C. forestry jobs?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we already mentioned moments ago in our
answer to a question by another member that we will not accept
this American ruling. We will challenge it both from within the
dispute mechanism system in the softwood lumber agreement as well
as consider taking the case directly to the World Customs
Organization in Brussels. We are clearly standing for our
industry and will not accept this latest attempt by the United
States of America.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I got such an intelligent, capable answer from the Minister of
Industry in the last question I asked that I am tempted to ask
him if he would answer all my transport questions from now on. I
want to raise the question about the air traffic control tower in
Kelowna. I would like him to confirm. The first answer he gave
me was such a good one.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not want to further qualify the answer if the hon.
member was satisfied with it except to say I hope that if changes
are to be made, they are done by the time I next fly to Kelowna.
The Speaker: That would conclude our question period for
today. Have a good break.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
while most Liberals do not know what day it is, it is Thursday.
Therefore the hardworking MPs from the official opposition will
be heading home to listen to their constituents for two weeks.
Before we go would the government House leader tell the House
what the business of the House will be when we come back from the
two week break?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, this
afternoon we are completing the report stage of Bill C-27, the
fisheries bill, pursuant to a special order adopted earlier this
day. Tomorrow the House will not sit, pursuant to the same
agreement.
When the House returns from the adjournment on April 12, it
shall take up the second reading of Bill C-71, the budget bill.
April 13 shall be an allotted say. On April 14 we will consider
third reading of Bill C-27, the fisheries legislation. Although
it is still somewhat early, I expect that the business on April
15 will be Bill C-72, the income tax bill.
I take this opportunity to thank all colleagues in the House for
their co-operation during the past number of weeks and to wish
everyone the best during the two weeks of adjournment.
* * *
1505
POINTS OF ORDER
STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my point of
order is very succinct.
Standing Order 30(5) says that during Standing Order 31 members
other than ministers of the crown may make statements. Then with
respect to Statements by Ministers Standing Order 33(1) says a
minister of the crown may make a short factual announcement or
statement of government policy. It goes on to say a member from
each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment
briefly thereon.
Mr. Speaker is very familiar with those standing orders. The
government has taken to using question period for this, depriving
us of being able to respond. The example today was the minister
announcing the pay raise for privates in the military. I think
that should be corrected.
The Speaker: Colleagues, like you, I enjoy question period
and never have I commented on the quality of the question or the
quality of the answer. Virtually all questions, unless members
use unparliamentary language and providing they go to the
administrative responsibility of one of the ministers of the
government, will be allowed.
Today and on other days when hon. members have sought the floor
seeking information from ministers, very infrequently have I
intervened. If the hon. members from the governing party wish to
ask their questions in a certain way, they will be permitted to
do so. They will be able to get the answers, hopefully, they are
seeking just as the members in the opposition parties would be
able to do.
ESTIMATES
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
earlier today part III of the estimates was tabled. I realize
that there are difficulties with massive distribution of bulky
documents. However, I have not been able to obtain a copy of
those papers. Members of the media have been provided with
copies while the majority of members of the House do not have
copies. The media want my reaction and I have been significantly
disadvantaged by the House distribution system which has been
inadequately served by the government.
I want to bring this situation to your attention, Mr. Speaker.
Today there is not a satisfactory arrangement to serve the needs
of members of parliament.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while I do not know the
particulars of the case, I will endeavour to find out. If a
sufficient quantity was not made available to the distribution
branch, as is normally the case, I will raise it with the
minister responsible. If it is a matter of actually delivering
them to the office only, the member knows he can pick one up
himself. That is a matter of distribution and involves only
that.
Meanwhile, I intend to ask my own officials to make a copy of
the document available to the hon. member immediately.
The Speaker: I hope this will satisfy the hon. member. He
will have a copy as soon as is feasible.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-27, an act to amend
the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act
to enable Canada to implement the agreement for the
implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the
conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks and other international fisheries treaties
or arrangements, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee; and of Group Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There was some confusion this morning with some as to the
interpretation of the special order made earlier this day for the
purpose of debate.
I want to clarify that for the benefit of all hon. members by
moving the following. There has been consultation among the
parties and I think the House would find that this clarifies the
situation:
That the special order made earlier this day shall be
interpreted as permitting each member to speak separately on each
group of amendments as grouped for consideration at report stage
of Bill C-27.
In other words, the effect of this would be that once we finish
considering a particular group, we could start another group and
then a member who has spoken on a previous group could therefore
speak again.
That clarification seemed to meet the consent of everyone.
Actually most of us had interpreted it as saying that already.
Perhaps it was not properly worded to do that.
The Speaker: Does the hon. House leader have permission
to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as clarified?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1510
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
While we are all in a good mood, I would ask for the consent of
the House to allow members to discuss the four groups during the
10 minutes allocated to them if they wish to do so. I would not
object to that.
The Speaker: The Chair always gives members the opportunity to
say what they want to say during debate, provided of course they
stick to the issue at hand.
[English]
The hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington has five and a half
minutes remaining.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
prior to question period I noted and I reiterate that the first
proposed amendment as outlined by the hon. member opposite is not
necessary insofar as the implementation of the principles
contained in the UNFA do not require specific authority in the
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
With respect to the second motion proposed by the member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, the scope of the
proposed amendment is much broader than the scope of Bill C-27.
As stated in its title, the purpose of Bill C-27 is solely to
deal with the implementation of UNFA and other international
fisheries agreements to which Canada is a party. Furthermore,
this amendment is unnecessary. This is in effect supported by
the fact that the government and governor in council's authority
to make regulations in Bill C-27 related to UNFA is restricted to
making regulations “for the implementation of UNFA”. Adopting
this amendment then would open the whole of the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act to interpretation in accordance with UNFA, whereas
this act covers situations falling outside the scope of UNFA.
The proposed amendment also refers to the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Canada participated actively
in the negotiation of the law of the sea convention and members
will recall the member for Vancouver Quadra spoke about that and
noted that aspect.
Similarly, Canada participated actively in the negotiation of
the two treaties concluded in 1994 and 1995 to implement the
convention, an agreement dealing with sea bed mining and an
agreement dealing with straddling and highly migratory fish
stocks.
Canada has also participated actively in the development and
work of the institutions contemplated by the convention. I
mention in particular the International Marine Organization, the
International Sea Bed Authority and the Continental Shelf
Commission. I think that is important to note.
The Canadian government is committed to ratifying the
convention, I think rightfully so, something all Canadians want.
However, the timing of this ratification must be placed in the
context of Canada's broader policy regarding high seas fishing.
UNCLOS does not effectively address concerns over high seas
fisheries management and therefore we must have an effective
international high seas enforcement regime to protect fish stocks
which straddle Canada's 200 mile fishing zone in adjacent high
seas.
The UNFA was negotiated to fill the gaps left in the convention
relating to high seas fisheries management. Canada's immediate
priority then is to ratify UNFA, and Bill C-27 will enable us to
do so. I think in that sense we need to hurry and move on this
expeditiously.
The effective functioning of the high seas enforcement regime
under UNFA will pave the way then for Canada to ratify the
convention, and while Canada is committed to the ratification of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the timing
of this ratification has yet to be decided. It would therefore
be improper in the meantime to bind ourselves to the convention
as a whole in such a broad way.
Therefore the government cannot agree to the second proposed
amendment as it stands to add an interpretation clause to Bill
C-27 and therefore I urge the House to reject it.
Finally and by way of conclusion I want to add my voice to those
who have urged the House to move quickly to adopt Bill C-27.
1515
Canada has learned the hard way that unregulated fishing has
disastrous consequences wherever it takes place. Overfishing
outside our 200 mile limit contributed to the collapse of our
groundfish stocks. Collapse of that fishery has damaged many
Canadian coastal communities. It is something we all regret
happened.
It is time we took the steps needed to ensure this kind of
destruction will never happen again off the coast of Atlantic
Canada or anywhere in the world. Therefore we need to move
expeditiously in this very important area. I urge all members to
vote for the bill accordingly.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me as
the fisheries critic for the federal NDP to rise in the House to
speak about a very important piece of legislation. We do support
it although we would like to see accepted a few of the amendments
being put forward to make the legislation even stronger.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for
his expert legal opinion when he offered our committee help. He
is a fine member of the Bloc Quebecois. His expertise in helping
us draft some of the legislation was greatly appreciated.
There are also three other people I would like to acknowledge
publicly who assisted me in deliberations over the bill:
Professor Tony Charles of St. Mary's University; Professor
Trevor Kenchington from Musquodoboit Harbour, Nova Scotia; and
Mr. Sam Elsworth of the Sambro fisheries in Nova Scotia who is
one of the finest experts when it comes to fisheries management
and the international fisheries agreements of Canada.
A former prime minister, Mr. Trudeau, once
said “The problem with fish is that they swim and that is the
problem”. We need international agreements to control, conserve
and protect fish stocks so that we can protect not only the
thousands of jobs in coastal communities in our country but the
millions of jobs in coastal communities around the world.
The member for Vancouver Quadra was correct when he said that
the Law of the Sea Convention was enacted in 1982. We are now in
1999 and we have not ratified it. Canada has dragged its heels
for 17 years. The reason is that they waited for me to be
elected as a member of parliament. Now the legislation is before
the House and I greatly appreciate the government and you, Mr.
Speaker, for recognizing that very simple fact.
Bill C-27, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, was part of an
initiative in 1995 when the Estai ship from Spain caught
headlines around the world. For the first time in a long time
Canada got tough and shot at someone. We did not want to hurt
anyone. We just wanted to scare them a bit. The former
fisheries minister, the present Premier of Newfoundland, ordered
it. He became known as Captain Canada and the hero of Canada.
Everyone loved him.
What really happened with the Estai ship? The ship went
back to Spain along with all the fish that had been caught. It
cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland $110,000 to keep the crew in
Newfoundland. I love Newfoundland as much as anyone else.
The eloquent speaker from St. John's will speak on this matter.
He would love everyone to go to Newfoundland to visit his
province. The only thing is that he will not pay for it. We did.
We paid $110,000 through our taxes for the Spanish crew to stay
in Newfoundland.
What resulted in the end? We now have Bill C-27, the Coastal
Fisheries Protection Act. The parliamentary secretary from the
beautiful area of Malpeque, P.E.I., stated quite clearly,
although it is not written, that their intention is that Canadian
fish caught by Canadian fishermen be processed in Canadian
plants. My party and I have been saying that since we got here.
As always, a good idea takes a long time before it sinks in. We
hope Canadian fish will be caught by Canadian fishermen and women
and processed by Canadian workers in Canadian plants.
One of my amendments to the bill will be that fisheries
officers, when they realize there is an infraction in our seas,
will have to ask permission from the foreign state in order to
enact any kind of action.
1520
My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands was incorrect ever so
slightly by saying we could not do anything. I know that if
officers suspect a wrongdoing, they can board the ship. They have
to notify the foreign nation of the action being taken. If I am
correct, 72 hours notice is needed for the foreign nation to
respond to Canada on exactly what action can or cannot be taken.
That is an awfully long time for our peace officers, our coast
guard officials or even our military people to be on board a
foreign vessel. It is also not clear in the act whether that is
72 hour of business days. What happens on a weekend or a
national holiday in the particular country?
My amendment of 48 hours simplifies it and makes it much more
clear. It does not state whether it is over a weekend or on a
business day. I think 48 hours is enough time to give any nation
warning of what Canada plans to do when we suspect illegal
fishing in our waters.
I am also glad to note that one of the amendments the
parliamentary secretary will be bringing forth concerns stateless
vessels. We are very concerned about what Spain, Iceland or any
other nation has done when it comes into our waters, but what
about those with flags of convenience or stateless vessels? I
call them pirates. If I had my way I would not have missed the
last time; I would have got them. Every time a foreign vessel
comes into our water and takes away tonnes of our fish, they
destroy the hopes, the lives and the aspirations of hardworking
people in the country from coast to coast to coast.
It is sinful and it is a shame that we have become the laughing
stock of the world when we sit back and ask what we can do now.
These are Canadian resources and they should be controlled by
Canadian management policies in agreement with other nations. I
realize we just cannot arbitrarily do it when it comes to
straddling stocks and stuff.
I will give the government credit. Effective today, it is
starting to talk about it and starting to do it. The problem is
that it took so long to get around to it. As I have already
explained, I am here now and we will get this problem corrected.
I want to say something to the members of the Standing Committee
on Fisheries and Oceans from all parties. I keep saying it is
the best committee in the House because we try to work as
co-operatively as possible. The member from the Gaspé area is a
very constructive member of our committee, along with his
colleague who also helped with drafting the amendments. They are
very good amendments. We will be reviewing them and deciding in
the future whether or not we will be supporting them. In
essence, from what we have read up to now, we should have no
problem supporting the majority of his amendments.
I look forward to a great Newfoundlander speaking about the
problems of the fisheries. It should be a very interesting
debate. Hopefully we can all learn something from this wonderful
individual.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague from Nova Scotia who always speaks with such
great sense and passion about the fishing industry.
It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this good piece of
legislation which all my caucus colleagues and I will be
supporting. I am especially delighted to be speaking on behalf
of our fisheries critic, the member for Burin—St. George's, who
has become a leader on both the fisheries committee and in the
House of Commons on all matters relating to fisheries, especially
on conservation and protection.
The member for Burin—St. George's cannot be with us today
because his father is in the hospital having some surgery. On
behalf of all members, we offer our good wishes to Mr. Matthews,
Senior, who is in the hospital today. Hopefully he is doing
well.
This act is obviously an act that gets a lot of support from all
people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has extensive industry
support from all sectors. It is a piece of legislation primarily
designed to add to our enforcement capabilities, to add to our
abilities to protect conservation, to protect the fish off the
coast of Newfoundland and to protect the jobs of many Atlantic
Canadians who depend on the fishery.
The act is not perfect, and probably no piece of legislation
ever is, but it is certainly an improvement.
Even though it is not perfect we will be supporting it because we
know of the tremendous pressures that have been placed on the
fish stocks off the coast of Atlantic Canada. They are badly
in need of some protection and certainly in need of enforcement
of our present laws.
1525
The fish we are talking about in particular are the migratory
species especially on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. They
include cod, flounder, turbot, tuna and swordfish. Those are the
fish we protect, but the people who depend on the fishery are the
people we are really trying to protect in this regard. They are
mainly Atlantic Canadians, especially Newfoundlanders, who depend
upon the fishery. All Canadians are also well served by
protecting this tremendous resource which feeds many of the
world's people.
Bill C-27 will have the support of our caucus. However, I want
to move an amendment. There is a problem with the act. Yes, it
is an improvement over the old act, but there is one very serious
gaping fault with the act. The amendment I will propose would
change that problem. The act has to be made stronger. I will
give a very quick history lesson.
In 1966 in Newfoundland waters there were 266,000 metric tons of
cod taken. Although my math may not be great, to me that is well
in excess of 532 million pounds or more than a half billion
pounds of fish in fishing year 1966. In 1977 through an act of
the House of Commons we brought in the 200 mile limit. There was
euphoria in Newfoundland; there was joy and bliss. We were
finally to have within Canada control of our resource. Everyone
thought that there would be more jobs in Newfoundland, that there
would be more fish resources and that we would have a very
vibrant economy based on that fishery.
In a real short history lesson we went from 532 million pounds
of cod in 1966 to zero pounds in a little less than 25 years, in
1992, even with a new fisheries management regime in Canada and
even with the 200 mile limit.
Very often during the 25 year period from 1966 to 1990 or so we
lost a lot of fish because the fishery was not managed by the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Often the fisheries industry
was managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs for trade
purposes, the department of external affairs or foreign trade,
and a lot of our fish were bargained away and given away.
In particular, with the few short moments I have today I want to
move an amendment to subsection 7.01(1). This is the most
important part of the act. It gives strength to our enforcement
officers.
It reads, as the previous member mentioned:
If a protection officer believes on reasonable grounds that a
fishing vessel of a participating state...has engaged in
unauthorized fishing in Canadian fisheries waters and the officer
finds the vessel in an area of the sea designated...the officer
may, with the consent of the state, take any enforcement action
that is consistent with this act.
In other words, when the enforcement officer finds something
that he thinks is seriously wrong, a new set of laws takes place
for that and only that act within Canada.
Basically what it says is that if the enforcement officer thinks
this person, this vessel or this captain has committed a crime in
Canadian waters, the officer must call the home country and get
permission to lay a charge. Maybe then the officer will be
allowed to lay the charge. Therefore I move:
That section 7.01(1) be amended by removing the words “may with
the consent of that state” and “any” and inserting the word
“shall” before the word “take”.
In effect I am saying that the enforcement officer, not that he
may, not that he might, not that there might be some minister of
fisheries as proposed by the member from British Columbia, shall
take action consistent with the act.
That will give the enforcement officer at sea exactly the same
provisions as RCMP officers and wildlife officers and in effect
the same provisions that enforcement officer has in our offshore
to lay a charge against a Canadian vessel. He does not have to
call the minister of external affairs, the Prime Minister of
Canada or the Minister of Justice of Canada to lay a charge
against a Canadian vessel. If it is a foreign vessel in Canadian
waters, why in the name of God would we want the enforcement
officer to somehow call some foreign country to get permission?
Just imagine if it were the other way around.
Imagine if this law were in place in Greenland and a Canadian
vessel was found overfishing or was suspected of overfishing in
Greenland waters. Greenland's external affairs department would
call external affairs in Canada who would get in touch with the
minister of fisheries. A cabinet meeting would probably have to
be called in Canada to get the permission of the minister. If it
involved a Newfoundland vessel, the premier of Newfoundland would
talk to the federal minister of fisheries and ask the minister
not to lay this charge. How in the name of God even in a
country as organized, disciplined and democratic as Canada, would
you get permission of the state government of the vessel
committing the crime?
1530
If we look at it in the absurd, most of these pirate fishing
vessels are registered in Panama. Imagine some poor fisheries
officer off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland who comes upon a
Panamanian vessel. This is what happened with the Estai
and others. They are probably from Spain, Portugal or some other
country but are registered in Panama. That would be the state we
would have to deal with.
Imagine the poor old fisheries officer trying to get hold of
Foreign Affairs Canada to get permission from the Minister of
Foreign Affairs to call Panama's minister of foreign affairs to
get permission to lay a charge off the coast of Newfoundland. It
simply would never happen. It could not happen. It would take
so long the evidence would be all gone. As a result we would
never get a charge laid.
My amendment, which I hope will be supported by all members of
this House of Commons, simply says that if a foreigner commits a
crime or is suspected of committing a crime in Canadian fishing
waters, then he will be treated like any other foreigner who
commits any other crime in Canadian jurisdiction. He lives by
Canadian law, that a charge be laid by the enforcement officer.
This is so absurd. It reminds me of a police officer in Canada
finding a juvenile delinquent breaking into a shopping mall and
having to call the delinquent's mom first to see if he can lay a
charge.
These fishing vessels off the coast of Newfoundland have
devastated our stocks. They have taken us from 532 million
pounds of fish in 1966 to no pounds in 1992. We have gradually
been bringing it up in the last few years. That protection and
enforcement is crucial to the fishing industry and its people in
Newfoundland and all of Atlantic Canada.
This amendment is very simple. It gives the enforcement officer
the right to enforce a law that is consistent whether you are a
Canadian or a foreigner. We are talking about foreigners
breaking the law in Canadian waters. From the point of view of
Newfoundland and on behalf of my colleague from Burin—St.
George's I want to say that if we are going to have a successful
fishery in Newfoundland that employs a lot of people, then we
certainly need this law changed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
for St. John's West would permit me to interrupt, would you be
kind enough to give the amendment to the page so we can bring it
forward before your time expires.
Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good one.
It is good for the Canadian people. It is good for the Canadian
fishing industry. It will be an enforceable act and an act that
can do exactly what it chooses. If we remove or change the
amendment I just mentioned, it will be more similar to acts that
have been passed in other parts of the world to agree with the
United Nations agreement on fisheries and oceans. It is a good
suggestion that will make the act stronger and better for all
Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment is in
order.
For the benefit of some members who were not here earlier today,
all of the amendments are deemed to be put. Everything is on the
table, but we are speaking to the amendments in groups. So it is
quite in order for this amendment to be accepted by the Chair.
Resuming debate.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be
very short. At this point I want to make a couple of comments on
the last two speakers.
I have no choice but to oppose the amendment put forward by the
member for St. John's West in that it is not needed. We do not
need to ask permission within our 200 mile limit to board and
take actions against vessels. The member is certainly wrong on
that point, but we do welcome his support and the support of his
party on Bill C-27.
1535
With regard to the comments made earlier by the member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, Bill C-27 does in
fact deal with stateless vessels. If the member looks closely,
the three government motions are for the purpose of ensuring that
Bill C-27 effectively covers stateless vessels.
I will talk on those amendments when we get to that point a
little later. We would certainly welcome the member's support in
that regard.
My colleagues who spoke earlier outlined in detail why we cannot
support Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will make a few brief remarks with regard to this bill
before us which amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and
the Canada Shipping Act. I understand the purpose of Bill C-27 is
to amend domestic legislation to implement an international
agreement on the conservation and long term sustainable use of
straddling fish stocks and highly migratory species.
The background of the legislation is interesting. In the first
instance the legislation was brought forward in the last
parliament by the former fisheries minister, a member from
Newfoundland. That was on April 17, 1997. It died on the Order
Paper when the election was called.
There is one item among many in the bill that I want to address
which causes me some concern. It is the notion that the
fisheries enforcement officials are inhibited if they attempt to
enforce conservation laws outside Canada's 200 mile limit. The
predecessor to this bill, Bill C-96, did not require the express
consent of participating states in order for Canadian officials
to take enforcement action. In other words, if a foreign vessel
was operating in a way that was contrary to Canadian law outside
our 200 mile limit, on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks for
example, Canadian vessels would have been able to take
enforcement action under that bill.
That particular part of the legislation was one that Canadians
were quite proud of achieving. I would like to give a little
history on how that came about.
I was fortunate enough to attend the UN on two instances when
the convention on straddling stocks and migratory species was
being discussed. At that time one of the concerns Canadians had
was that they would not be able to apprehend a vessel which was
in violation of Canadian conservation laws if it was outside the
200 mile limit.
Members will recall the shameful incident of the Minister of
Fisheries in the previous government, the current premier of
Newfoundland, firing upon an unarmed fishing vessel in the north
Atlantic. I say shameful because he was not firing on a military
vessel but he was firing on an unarmed vessel which was manned by
some poor fishermen from Spain, men who were making just a few
thousand dollars for five months work in the north Atlantic in
very unpleasant conditions, guys just trying to make a living.
Because we did not have some good legislation in place that would
allow us to take enforcement actions or compel the people on the
Estai to abide by our laws, this action was taken. The
action was still inappropriate.
The later action of the former fisheries minister in attempting
to sever the net from the vessel was just as inappropriate. He
put at risk the lives of people not only on the coast guard
vessel involved but also on that fishing vessel. Anybody who has
any sense of the inherent danger of operating or working on the
ocean knows that you do not play around like that man did.
1540
I think it was shameful. I thought it was shameful at the time,
and I still do. I do not want to see it happen again. The act
will not prevent that kind of action. It simply will not do it
because we have given up the right. How did we give it up?
I mentioned that I had been at the UN when this was being
discussed. The Canadian negotiators were absolutely delighted
with one item. They got U.S. consent to allow U.S. vessels to be
boarded if they were in violation of conservation laws off the
shore of any country, outside the 200 mile limit of any country.
The Americans were very reluctant to allow that to happen. They
could not abide the thought that some foreign nation would be
able to board their vessels and enforce some conservation laws,
but they did come to the table and they agreed that they would do
that. The pressure came from the non-governmental organizations
in the United States. It did not come from the legislators, but
from the non-governmental organizations which are concerned about
conservation matters.
The Canadian delegation felt that they had achieved a great
victory when they got this consent from the Americans. Back in
Canada those of us in parliament and on the committee as well as
those who are interested felt a great victory had been achieved
as well. We felt that if a foreign vessel was operating in a
manner that was detrimental to the welfare of fish stocks outside
Canada's 200 mile limit on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks,
Canadian vessels would have the authority to apprehend. They do
not have it now, but they would have had that authority.
We know that Canada is not too proud of its actions at the time
of the Estai. We know that Canada knows it was operating
outside the law. When the Spanish people took that matter to the
World Court at The Hague, Canada refused to square off in the
courtroom. Canada said no, it was not going. The court's
jurisdiction did not apply because Canada would not agree.
We have problems with the Americans. We would like to get the
Americans into the court at The Hague and square off with them
over the problem of the A/B line in B.C. or over the problem
with the salmon, but they will not go. They can always say that
as Canada did not go in the case of the Estai, why should
the Americans go on this issue when they think they may lose.
That is the problem. If we violate international law, it is
pretty hard to take the high ground and ask somebody else to
abide by it when we will not.
What we needed to do in this bill was to ensure that Canada
would have the authority to enforce its conservation laws outside
our 200 mile limit when the laws were being broken by a foreign
vessel. Without that, this whole thing really is worthless.
In talking about this point and the actions of the premier of
Newfoundland up to that point I think Canada was inching slowly
toward the notion of not just having control of the seabed on the
nose and tail of the Grand Banks, but also the water column. That
is important to be able to enforce fisheries laws beyond the 200
mile limit on the nose and tail. Up until the Estai
incident, we were making some progress in staking our claim to
the water column as well as the seabed. That initiative really
has died as a result of the Estai incident and we still
suffer.
We see that with this bill the government has backed away from
an important concession it got from the Americans, an important
concession that it won at the UN in my understanding of it, by
not insisting in the bill that we would have the authority to
arrest foreign vessels which are violating our conservation laws
beyond the 200 mile limit.
I do not think this bill is worth the time we are taking to
discuss it. This morning the member for Sydney—Victoria
commented about what he referred to as a diversion when we were
talking about a private member's bill on consecutive sentencing.
He said we were taking away from the debate on an important
fisheries bill.
This bill is not important because it is not doing the job.
It is not doing the job because this government caved in. To whom
I do not know. It caved in on the important concession it had
won at the UN, that we would have had the ability to force
conservation laws outside our 200 mile limit on the straddling
stocks and migratory species. We do not have it in this bill.
The bill is not worth wasting time on until we do get it.
1545
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no
further members rising on debate on the first group, we will
proceed now to the second group.
[Translation]
Pursuant to the order made
earlier today, the motions in Group No. 1 are deemed moved and a
recorded division deemed requested and deferred.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the debate on motions in Group No. 2.
[Translation]
Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the motions in Group
No. 2 are deemed proposed and seconded.
[English]
They have all already been moved and seconded. This group
contains Motions Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 17.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make sure that, in the time
remaining until the end of the sitting today, which is 5.30 p.m.
I believe, the three groups of motions can be debated. I urge
all participants to make sure that we can cover all three. This
will mean splitting our time at some point.
I will therefore set an example by picking up the pace. The
purpose of the motions in Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 5, 6, 9, 11
and 17—I am trying to put this briefly to give people the idea—is
to address the so-called extraterritorial role the Canadian
government could assume by slipping certain terms into Bill C-27
that, in my view, are open to interpretation because they are
not consistent with the terms already used in the UN fisheries
agreement, or UNFA.
The purpose of Bill C-27, let us not forget, is to implement this
agreement. It would be very wise to use the terminology found
in the agreement as an example to bring other countries around
the world to sign that agreement.
At this point, I would like, if I may, to make use of some notes
left to me by my colleague, the hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry, when he had to leave to travel with the
foreign affairs committee this week. The member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry worked with the members of the standing
committee on fisheries, precisely because an international
treaty is involved and he is far more familiar with
international jargon than I am.
Here are the notes my colleague wanted me to bring to the
attention of the hon. members. Reference is made to changes
that ought to be made to Bill C-27 to ensure full conformity with
the UNFA. One of these changes would be to replace, in French,
the term “délimitation” by “désignation” throughout the bill;
clauses 2, 3, 4, 8 and 12 would be affected.
This would bring the French more in line with the English
version of the text. In French the term “délimiter” confers
a kind of power upon Canada to decide what the zones will be,
while the fisheries agreement speaks of “désigner”, and
in English “designated”. So why not take advantage of this
opportunity?
1550
As well as bringing the terminology more in line with
the English version of the text, using the word “désignation” would
also have reassured Canada's partners, particularly those in the
European Union, who are still concerned that Canada may again
wish to confer an extraterritorial scope to its Coastal
Fisheries Protection Act, in contravention of its new
obligations to be assumed when it becomes a party to UNFA.
In order to ensure that the bill does not assume this scope, we
also proposed adding a new clause 2.1, to which reference has
already been made earlier.
The point of all that is to bring the report into line with the
fisheries agreement.
Still on the subject of the bill's conformity with the UNFA, we
also proposed that the words “serious reasons” used in the text
of the agreement itself replace the words “reasonable grounds”,
as we were not convinced that the test of reasonability the
government wanted was as exigent as that provided in the treaty
being implemented.
The interpretative provision we proposed to add to clause 2.1
could also have promoted the alignment of the concept of
reasonable grounds with that of serious reasons, but its
rejection by the government does not guarantee it would
necessarily be interpreted in this sense.
What should be understood here, and I am pleased other members
have already mentioned it, is that the fisheries agreement is
inherently good.
What the government is trying to do is ensure that it is indeed
the United Nations fisheries agreement they want to allow to be
Canadianized and to incorporate in our laws. However, they must
be very careful. As someone mentioned earlier, only six
countries have signed and ratified this agreement.
An example must be set. Insofar as possible, it must be
incorporated textually into Canadian law. I think the
parliamentary secretary said that we can do it integrally for
the moment, since it has not yet become international law. For
sure, but I would remind the House we may have a problem.
The aim is to permit the maximum number of countries to sign it.
Thirty countries are required for it to become international law.
Right now, there are people getting ready to sign, the European
Community in particular, and there are 11 countries that I think
will sign this agreement. We must show confidence and then urge
these people to sign.
How can we do this? By means of the United Nations fisheries
agreement. If we do not agree with the agreement, let us use
international diplomatic channels to amend and improve and, in
certain cases, as the member for St. John's has proposed, put
more bite into this agreement, so that straddling fish stocks
will be off limits in Canadian waters.
I agree, except that, with the present wording of Bill C-27
making it possible to Canadianize certain passages of the
fisheries agreement, I am afraid we are missing the boat. I am
concerned that we are scaring off allies who are getting ready
to sign this agreement.
Earlier, the member for Delta—South Richmond mentioned the
problem raised by the boarding of the Estai.
I personally took part in drafting Bill C-29, which allowed the
boarding of vessels fishing our straddling stocks. The Bloc
Quebecois worked on Bill C-29 to prevent illegal fishing because
it could not be stopped under international law.
1555
Now, with the UN fisheries agreement, we have a proposed
framework, but the spirit of the letter included in that
agreement is in contradiction with the fact that to implement
the agreement by enacting Bill C-27 is to forget that Bill C-29
contradicts this agreement.
I am in favour of the agreement, but I do not agree with how
Canada wants to implement it in its own legislation. It is
inappropriate and even contradictory.
I wonder what we want to do exactly, particularly since the
Canadian government can, without consulting the House, without
getting its approval, sign and ratify this agreement on its own,
thus promoting its signing by other countries, including the
European Community. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out,
we will come back later in this House to Canadianize the texts
of the agreement.
If we really want to implement that agreement, we might drop
Bill C-29. I am in favour of having a system based on the rule of
law. If we do not agree with such a system, we must notify the
proper authorities. As the hon. member for Delta pointed out, we
will have to go back to the UN and ask for a clarification.
I realize we were dragging so far behind, internationally, as
regards the conservation of fish stocks, that this first step,
with the UNFA, is a necessary one.
However, the terminology used in Bill C-27 leads us to believe
that Canada does not intend to respect the spirit of the
agreement, but to assume the role of a protector, which is good
in itself. However, one cannot have it both ways. We will have
to choose.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while I want to
deal specifically with Group No. 2, the member for Delta—South
Richmond mentioned a couple of points earlier in his general
comments. He said he did not think this bill was worthy of
discussion. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not
know where the member comes from in terms of making that point.
He has expressed endless times that we need better management
plans, that we need to conserve fish stocks. That is what this
agreement is all about.
It is a very important international agreement through which
Canada has provided leadership to the world in terms of getting
to this stage. Now we are at the stage within our country where
we need Bill C-27 in order to ratify the UNFA agreement as a
whole.
Although the member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok seems quite
supportive of the bill he kind of inferred that the bill is
somewhat about motherhood. It is much more than that. The bill
does provide guiding principles of conservation and management
which we all in the House want to move forward on. We want to
ensure we do a better job of managing the fishery, that stocks
are conserved and that it becomes an industry of the future both
in this country close to our shore and globally around the world
for other countries.
The bill provides strong measures such that we will have an
enforcement regime in place. That will be in a number of areas.
The bill provides a compulsory binding mechanism for the
settlement of disputes. All those points are important. As a
country we are showing leadership to the world on the whole area.
As I mentioned earlier today in question period, we set the tone
of discussions at the FAO, in which we are moving forward, on
stock conservation and management measures.
I will speak on the Group No. 2 amendments, Motions Nos. 3, 5,
6, 9, 11 and 17, tabled by the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok with regard to
the French text of the bill.
The concerns raised by these amendments, with respect to the use
of the word “délimité” in the French text of Bill C-27, where
the English text uses the word “designated”, were raised by the
hon. member and his colleague during discussions at the standing
committee. We discussed it at quite some length.
1600
The government fully appreciates the strong need for precision
and clarity in both official languages. However, after careful
consideration by expert legal and linguistic advisers, we have
determined that the best term to be used in the circumstances is
the term “délimité”, which is currently used in Bill C-27. We
are certainly standing with that word because it provides, in our
opinion and based on legal and linguistic advice, the best
clarity to the bill.
Further to the other motions, the governor in council's
authority to make regulations designating areas of the high seas
subject to the UNFA regime is not open ended. The designation
must be for the implementation of UNFA or other fisheries
treaties. Only those areas of the sea regulated by the relevant
regional fisheries organizations can and will be designated,
neither more nor less.
I would therefore urge the House to vote against the second
group of amendments proposed by the member opposite for the
reasons I have outlined.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to very briefly ask the
parliamentary secretary for fisheries and oceans a couple of
questions.
Previously the member for Delta—South Richmond indicated a
concern about UN conversations at meetings or groups that he had
been to a few years previously. He raised a couple of very
interesting points about the possibility that Canada may have
reduced any kind of managerial control over or opportunity to
toughen our conservation laws, especially on the nose and tail
of the Grand Banks.
I would like to ask if it is at all possible for the
parliamentary secretary to respond to the Reform member's
assertions and if he could table any kind of response to the
House of Commons so that all of us could review the comments from
the department and the government on what the member said.
I wonder how the member got a holiday named after him. I guess
he was lucky in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, I want to wish you, all the pages and all of my
political colleagues in the House of Commons, as well as the
people of Canada, a very happy Easter and a very restful holiday.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify
something for the member opposite. He asked me a question that I
would love to answer, but under the rules I do not think I can.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The parliamentary
secretary will have an opportunity very shortly because I see no
other members rising to speak to Group No. 2. We will proceed to
Group No. 3 in just a moment.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the questions on the
motions in Group No. 2 are deemed put and the recorded divisions
are deemed requested and deferred.
The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group
No. 3.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the motions in Group
No. 3 are deemed moved and seconded. Group No. 3 contains
Motions Nos. 4 and 7.
1605
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Group No. 3 comprises Motions 4 and 7.
Motion No. 4 is made for concordance purposes. The purpose of
Motion No. 7 is to ensure that MPs have a right to review when
the minister wishes to enter into other treaties or when the
minister or the governor in council wishes to apply something
different.
I am not speaking here of restricting the power of the minister,
but of allowing us as parliamentarians, since we are asked to
participate in the ratification and implementation of the UNFA,
to have a say in it subsequently.
Ratification of an international treaty does not require the
creation of Canadian legislation. At the very least, out of
simple politeness, they could have simply tabled a notice of
motion. We would have treated this like a motion, exactly as
they did in the case of the motion on distinct society. It was
fine to use that approach for distinct society, but not for Bill
C-27, while all their legal experts tell us that they could have
signed and ratified this agreement without asking us.
Since I have the microphone at this time and we are still on the
air, allow me to point out that the purpose of Motion No. 7 is
to introduce two new subsections.
First, subsection (2) reads as follows:
(2) No regulations shall be made under paragraph 6(e) or (f)
unless the Minister has laid before the House of Commons a draft
of the regulations that are to be made at least 120 days before
the regulations are made.
One hundred and twenty days, or four months, is not all that
long. It allows the parties time to learn the contents of the
regulations, to sound out those who will have to live with
application of these regulations, or in other words the fishers,
and to get back to the House, to the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans, to make comments. This could not help but improve
any regulations the minister would be tempted to make.
Once again, this would allow us, as parliamentarians, to have a
say in the matter.
We are the ones who are accountable to the public—public servants
are accountable to their minister—but we should also be given the
opportunity to have a say.
Motion No. 7 proposes to add subsection (3), which reads as
follows:
(3) No regulations made under paragraph 6(e) or (f) of this Act
shall come into force unless they have been approved by the
committee of the House of Commons that normally considers
matters relating to fisheries and oceans.
Again, this only makes sense.
If the House of Commons says that it needs a standing committee
on fisheries to clarify and understand marine-related issues, it
would be appropriate for the department and the minister himself
to respect the wishes of the House regarding anything that may
concern the implementation agreement, and have the issue come
back before that committee.
This motion is based on common sense. I will sum things up by
saying that parliamentarians must have a look at the issue. This
is very important.
I want to go back to the motions we discussed earlier. Since I
am the sponsor of the motions included in the first three
groups, I was the first one to speak, but I have not yet had the
opportunity to comment on remarks made by hon. members.
I did mention that the fisheries agreement could be ratified and
signed without the approval of this House. I would like members
opposite to realize what we are really trying to do.
We are talking about the way to protect our stocks at the
Canadian level—the hon. member from Newfoundland wished we would
go further—but we already have Bill C-29 for that. We have the
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to protect what is in our
waters. As for straddling stocks, we already have Bill C-29,
which allowed us to behave the way we did with the Estai. The
international community understands that. The important thing is
to make the international community understand.
1610
The subtleties of language are very important in international
diplomacy. If a word is used in French or English, the people
who have to live with the French expression provided by the
government are perhaps better qualified to say care should be
used in that regard.
I am not claiming to be the best linguist Quebec or the
francophone community ever produced. Sometimes I murder my own
mother tongue. But God knows I want to try to improve it.
When we ask that care be used in choosing the words, it is
because we feel, perhaps with our Latin blood, that it is
important for the countries we will be inviting to sign the
agreement. I think that is what counts at the moment. We want
a UN fisheries agreement.
With this umbrella, we can try to add a little more bite and
make sure people understand the same thing, but if to increase
the bite we frighten potential signatories, we will miss the
boat. So we must choose our words carefully.
The Bloc Quebecois knows a good thing when it sees it. In this
case, is that not getting the largest possible number of
signatories to the agreement? I think that is the aim. Or does
it lie in protecting fish stocks?
The Bloc Quebecois has already helped do this in the absence of
international law. We worked with the government to move Bill
C-29 through all three stages in a single day. We have shown
common sense and co-operation because we believe that our stocks
must be protected.
With Bill C-29, Canada has already done its part. The important
thing is to get the maximum number of countries on board. The
Bloc Quebecois is holding out its hand precisely so that the
House will be careful.
I do not know whether I will be allowed to table the document.
I will not hold it up right now, but it is here on my desk. It
is a press release dated March 11 issued by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans when it took part in an FAO forum in Rome.
There was a question about this earlier during Oral Question
Period.
This press release is very eloquent. The fifth paragraph reads
as follows:
In Rome today, Canada called on all nations that have not
already done so to ratify and fully implement key international
agreements, in particular the UNFA, before the end of 2000. For
its part, Canada has already introduced legislation in
Parliament with the objective of ratifying UNFA by the end of
the year.
The key word in this paragraph is not something I made up. It
is the representative of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
addressing all countries of the world in Rome and calling on
them to fully implement key international agreements.
When I ask that some provisions of the UNFA, like article 5 of
part II, be included as general interpretation and management
principles, I am not being mean. I did not write them, they are
in the agreement. Now I am told “This is not necessary. DFO
already applies these principles in the measures it is taking”,
but a measure and legislation are two very different things.
One can change a measure like one changes one's shirt—some people
change shirts every day. I have the feeling DFO sometimes changes
its mind two to three times a day.
It is important to know that DFO recommends integral measures. I
think the minor amendments we put forward to ensure that Canada
can get the most people possible to sign the agreement are
laudable efforts and I urge all my hon. colleagues to weigh all
of this very carefully.
I remind the House that the Bloc supports the UNFA, but has some
difficulty accepting the way the government is using Bill C-27
to pick and choose the parts of the agreement that suit it. We
could miss the boat here.
1615
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am really
pleased that the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok recognizes the
elegance of DFO press releases. I am sure those in the DFO
headquarters communications branch will be putting that one on
the wall because it is something we have not heard that often.
With regard to the remarks just made, we on the government side
appreciate the efforts made by the member opposite in terms of
trying to debate and discuss and get the best bill forward we
can. I clarify that we did listen intently to the discussions
held at committee in terms of the concerns coming forward by the
Bloc Quebecois on wording. We had it checked out by legal and
linguistic experts and it was found that better wording and
better clarity rests with the wording we have currently in the
bill. We certainly thank the members opposite for their interest
and the points they raised in that regard.
Group No. 3 motions, Motions Nos. 4 and 7, propose amendments to
Bill C-27 that would require that regulations made pursuant to
the bill be reviewed and approved by the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I believe Motion No.
4 is consequential to Motion No. 7.
Bill C-27 does amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and
the Canada Shipping Act. Its passage is required for Canada to
be able to ratify the UN fisheries agreement which we need to
protect straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. Existing
legislation is for the most part sufficient to allow Canada to
implement the UN agreement. There are, however, some gaps.
Bill C-27 is intended to allow Canada to assert the rights and
meet the obligations set out in the agreement. Various speakers
talked about some of those rights and obligations earlier and I
specifically indicated that it does create guiding principles of
conservation and management, that it creates an enforcement
regime, that we all have to respect and give some authority to
our fisheries officers, and creates compulsory binding mechanisms
for the settlement of disputes. They are all very important.
The government has worked hard to ensure the bill is fully
consistent with the agreement. Once the bill is passed and
subordinate regulations are made, Canada will be in a position to
ratify the United Nations fisheries agreement.
In general the purpose of regulations is to set out the details,
the nuts and bolts, of a legislative regime. This is the intent
of the proposed regulation making power found in Bill C-27. This
regulation making power allows for the making of regulations that
would set out such details as the fishing rules adopted by
regional fisheries organizations such as NAFO that vessels of
states party to UNFA or to the other treaties implemented
pursuant to Bill C-27 must comply with, in the areas of
the high seas where these rules apply, and the circumstances and
procedures that must be followed to enforce these rules, a very
important point.
To have such regulations approved by parliament would be both
impractical and inefficient. The member for St. John's West made
that very point, that we need to act with haste in terms of
people violating these agreements. The fishing rules adopted by
regional fisheries organizations are amended every year. These
rules provide for such details as the amount of fish that can be
caught, where the fish can or cannot be caught, the size of the
fish that can be caught, bycatch restrictions, gear restrictions
and so on.
1620
Many of these rules are valid for only one year and must be put
in regulations quickly so as to be applicable in as short a time
as one month.
There is already the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of
Regulations which has the express role of reviewing government
regulations.
I submit the House should not usurp the role of that committee.
Having the House review and approve regulations made pursuant to
Bill C-27 would be inefficient, impractical and not in the best
interests of Canadians in terms of acting quickly.
For those reasons the government cannot accept these two
amendments and I urge the House to reject them. Furthermore, I
call on all members to continue to give their support to Bill
C-27, which will clear the way for the implementation of this
valuable and necessary international agreement.
If we are serious about conservation, and I know all members
are, we need to ratify UNFA and get on with the task of
rebuilding what is left of our straddling and highly migratory
fish stocks before it is too late. As I said earlier today, we
are making progress in the House. We made progress a couple of
weeks ago at the FAO in Rome and Canada can continue to provide
leadership in that regard. With the support of hon. members on
this bill it will move us a huge step forward.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
want to go back on these Group No. 3 amendments to section 7,
enforcement and the heart of the act.
If this act will be an enforcement act rather than a diplomatic
act then section 7 seriously needs to be amended. I will read it
again as it stands now. It talks about a foreign vessel in
Canadian waters committing an apparent offence: “The enforcement
officer may, with the consent of that foreign state, take any
enforcement action that is consistent with this act”.
I amended that to say that the officer “shall take any
enforcement action that is consistent with this act”. It
actually gives some power to the enforcement officer. I am very
disappointed that the government seems unwilling to listen to
logic in this section.
I will give an example. What other enforcement agency in the
Canadian system has to ask permission of the foreign state of
citizenship of a person who has committed a crime? If a
Panamanian citizen kills a Canadian citizen, does the RCMP have
to call the president of Panama, the minister of external affairs
from Panama and ask them if it can lay a charge of first degree
murder against the person? Obviously it is too silly to talk
about. I do not mind picking on Panama because it really is in
fisheries the pirate country in the world.
If a person from Panama came to Newfoundland and took up
partridge hunting, which I dearly love in the fall, and he wanted
to shoot partridge in February or March, does the Newfoundland
wildlife officer actually have to call and say he cannot lay a
charge against this person from Panama until he gets permission
from somebody?
If a customs officer finds a person from Panama with a trunk
full of cocaine, does he have to call the minister of
international trade from Panama to get permission to lay a
charge? Obviously not. It is too silly to talk about.
The amendment our caucus is suggesting in section 7(1) is to
provide for the enforcement.
The parliamentary secretary might say he does not agree with
this but it is funny that he did unanimously agree with it when
he was a member of the fisheries committee, when it had some
leadership under the member for Gander—Grand Falls. The
fisheries committee agreed to change that section of the act to
put in that the enforcement officer shall take whatever action is
consistent.
Of course we also know the parliamentary secretary came in the
House and would not concur or agree with the fisheries committee
report which he had also agreed with at committee. That is how
Liberals do things.
The parliamentary secretary and all the Liberals and everybody
on the fisheries committee realized that section of the act was
very weak and a change was required.
They made in the committee exactly the same recommendation I am
making, that the enforcement officer shall take any action
consistent with the act.
1625
I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell his caucus that
this is not a diplomatic act we are talking about here. We are
talking about an enforcement and conservation act that is crucial
to the way of life of many persons in Atlantic Canada, especially
Newfoundlanders.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to reconsider the Liberal
position on this and to really put some teeth in this so it
really does become an enforcement act rather than a diplomatic
act.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak again but
a couple of issues have just risen that I think need
clarification.
I know it is not question and answer period but I want to
reiterate something. My colleague from St. John's West is correct
on what happened in committee. We had agreed on a certain wording
of a piece of legislation. Unfortunately it has been changed.
I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he can ask the
department for complete clarification one more time and table
that response in the House so that not only my colleague from St.
John's West but the Bloc, the Reform and we can have a clear
answer on what the department sees as a response.
I have another question for the parliamentary secretary. If Bill
C-27 passes in the House and passes in the Senate, how quickly
will we be able to sign the law of the sea agreement? Will Canada
sign it? Will the government do it immediately or will it wait?
I think that is a very important question. I know the
parliamentary secretary cannot respond right now. If he could
agree to table those responses in the House, we would greatly
appreciate it on this side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, have a great Easter, you and your family, and to
everyone in the House.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order made
earlier today, all questions on the motions in Group No. 3 are
deemed put and the recorded division is deemed requested and
deferred.
The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group
No. 4.
[English]
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the motions in Group
No. 4 are deemed moved and seconded. This group contains Motions
Nos. 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, after a full day of practice, you are now able to
pronounce the name of my constituency almost perfectly. I invite
you to visit my beautiful riding this summer. You will love it.
We are now looking at the fourth group. I know that clerks are
trying to work miracles to find a connection between motions but
I will do my best to quickly find the link.
Motions Nos. 8 and 12 were both introduced by the Bloc
Quebecois. Motion No. 8 concerns section 7.01, which would read,
and I quote:
The purpose of this change is to bring the terminology in line
with that found in the United Nations fisheries agreement,
instead of referring to reasonable grounds. Some will say I am
splitting hairs here. This is not my intention but, if we
want to make the work of lawyers easier, I believe that in
dealing with an international treaty special attention must be
paid to terminology and format.
The same goes for Motion No. 12. The Bloc Quebecois proposed
these motions in order to bring the terminology used in the bill
in line with that found in the agreement.
I will now comment on Motions Nos. 10 and 13 put forward by the
Reform Party.
1630
Motion No. 10 also concerns clause 4 and relates to terminology.
They replace “with the consent of that state”, that is the flag
country of the offending vessel, with “with the consent of the
Minister”, which would enable the Minister to decide what he
will do. Same thing in Motion No. 13 I believe.
It is very difficult. I will read immediately Motion No. 14, put
forward by the NDP member who spoke earlier. With respect to
clause 8, he asks through this motion—and this was the subject of
his first speech this afternoon—that:
It is the 48-hour concept the NDP member would like to change.
I have a big problem when I listen to what Newfoundlanders, NDP
members and all other members are saying. Everybody seems to
want to protect our fisheries, and that is fine. They are right
when they say this agreement on fisheries does not have enough
teeth. The point the NDP member is making in Motion No. 14 says
a lot. I do not want to create any panic, but I want to show if
I may the new weapon the fishery officer will now have to use
when he boards and inspects a vessel.
Try to imagine a fishery officer boarding a ship. He will wear a
uniform, he will have a handgun on one hip, but what will he
have on his other hip, under the regulations? His new weapon is
here, a cellular phone. He will need a phone to enforce this
agreement.
From now on, he will not be allowed to board and inspect a
fishing vessel without first notifying the country of the vessel
caught in the act. Gun in hand, he will have to ask “Okay, wait
a minute. What is the phone number of your government? I have to
call your prime minister to ask for his permission”. That is
what we have in this agreement.
In a more serious mode, I am sure members understand the problem
I have. I come from a fishing community, and I want to protect
our fisheries, like all other members here.
This is what we did with Bill C-29, when international law did
not cover this.
There was the Estai episode in 1995 and, oddly enough, it is in
1995 that the UN fisheries agreement was drafted, and Canada was
actively involved in that agreement. But what do we want to do
exactly? Today, the House is not being asked to protect
fisheries, but to agree to implement the UN fisheries agreement.
I did not negotiate this agreement. I hear members say that it
is not strong enough. Is this the proper forum to discuss it? I
do not think so. We will have to go back to Rome with DFO
drafters, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier, because
we are being asked to comply with the agreement in its entirety.
This means the Department of Fisheries and Oceans believes it is
the best tool in the world.
Now it recommends “the new best tool in the world”, as our Prime
Minister would say, to its fishery officers, saying “Now, you
must have a phone because that is the way that, at the
international level, it was decided to proceed when you want to
board and inspect a boat or when you have serious reasons to
believe that someone did something illegal with regard to
fishing”. But the proper forum to talk about it is at the
international level.
1635
If it is really to protect fisheries, and we all agree to say
“We are strong and we try to have it our way like this”, let us
stick with Bill C-29. However, if Canada is now ready to sign
such an agreement, it may mean that Bill C-29 is not enough at
the international level.
We have to find allies. People have to understand that fisheries
need to be protected. Foreign countries must streamline their
fisheries as we did on the east coast and on the west coast too.
If we want to stop our stocks from being depleted, we have to
ask people not to help themselves to our food locker. But we
also have to understand that people need time.
A way to increase public awareness through international
diplomacy is to implement a fisheries agreement.
According to what I have heard here today, the proposed
agreement would not be enough. If people really want strong
tools, this agreement will not be enough. I would expect that
when the House returns on the Tuesday following the Easter
break, all the parties in the House will not agree to let Canada
sign the agreement, because we really want stronger tools.
The main point here, that tool in question, is a telephone given
to fisheries officers, who have to contact the foreign countries
involved and give them three days to respond. It is as if the
telephone service in these countries did not allow them to
respond any faster.
If we want to live in an international law environment, and I
think we must educate people about this, we may have to set
aside our desire to get tough internationally and try this
mediation, have the agreement ratified; once covered by this
agreement, we could then try to find some way of incorporating
into it the stronger measures requested by the hon. members, but
if we want firm measures now, this agreement should not be
ratified.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with an international law system. We
will support the United Nations fisheries agreement, but we do
not agree with Bill C-27, which I believe completely misses the
mark and fails to respect the spirit and the letter of the
agreement. By trying to keep two pots on the boil, Canada might
miss the boat.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who
just spoke spent a lot of time talking about cell phones. We on
this side of the House believe in using all available technology
in the interest of protecting our fishermen, fishing communities
and fishery resources.
I want to deal specifically with the question that the member
for St. John's West, a member of the NDP and the member opposite
raised about the consent requirement in section 7.01. I will
outline it in some detail in the hope that before third reading
they will see the good logic in it, understand that there is not
a problem as a result of section 7.01, understand that their
concerns are being taken care of, and be able to come into the
House and support the bill in its totality.
The consent requirement in section 7.01 is there for a legal
reason. International law requires that consent of the flag
state be obtained in the circumstances described in section 7.01.
Section 7.01 deals with a very narrow situation. It deals with
the situation where a foreign vessel is spotted in Canadian
waters and there is reason to believe that it has committed a
violation in Canadian waters. For some reason Canadian
enforcement officials are unable or were unable to follow the
vessel in hot pursuit when it escaped from Canadian waters to the
high seas.
1640
In such a specific situation international law requires that the
flag state's consent be obtained if Canada wants to board the
vessel on the high seas, if it is spotted there later. In other
words, if there is not a hot pursuit or the pursuit is broken,
Canada cannot simply board that vessel on the high seas two days
later, for instance, without the flag state's consent. This
would be contrary to international law.
The hon. member's proposed amendment would be contrary to the
international law as reflected in UNFA. We should understand it
is only in that specific instance where that occurs. We
certainly want to abide by international law.
I want to deal with the government amendments to the bill as a
result of the standing committee's discussion that we think
improve it substantially. Bill C-27, in the final analysis, will
enable the Government of Canada to implement the agreement. The
bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada
Shipping Act which is necessary before the agreement can be
ratified.
Once this is done and Canada has implemented the agreement, we
will have an important tool for protecting straddling and highly
migratory fish stocks. Specifically Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 18,
which are government motions, are necessary and were decided as a
result of the discussions in the Standing Committee on Fisheries
and Oceans.
The proposed amendments are to clauses 11 and 12 of the bill.
Clause 11, which amends sections 18.01 and 18.02 of the Coastal
Fisheries Protection Act, provides for procedural rules
applicable to prosecutions and to the collection of fines where
the vessel is the defendant as opposed to a person. UNFA
contemplates actions against vessels, not against persons.
New sections 18.01 and 18.02 will enable the crown to institute
proceedings and collect fines against vessels rather than
persons. This is what is sometimes referred to in maritime law
as an in rem procedure. These two procedural rules were meant to
apply to pursuits and collection of fines from all vessels
including vessels that are stateless.
Clause 12 of the bill proposes an amendment to section 18.01 of
the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. This amendment provides
that whenever an enforcement officer exercises power under this
act on the high seas, as described in Bill C-27, the rules
provided by criminal law, including those contained in the
Criminal Code, apply to the enforcement officer's actions.
A good example of the application of this provision is the
protection that the Criminal Code offers to enforcement officers
when using reasonable force in the exercise of their duties. It
is to protect our officers who are doing work for Canada and for
its fisheries.
This section is amended by Bill C-27 to apply to situations
where enforcement officers exercise powers in relation to vessels
of state party to UNFA or to other relevant fisheries treaties.
Stateless vessels should have been covered in this provision, and
the government's proposed amendment will ensure that it covers
stateless vessels. Therefore I encourage all members of the
House to support Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 18.
With regard to the other motions in Group No. 4, we will be
opposing those particular motions. In the time remaining I will
try to get through them.
1645
The first two amendments proposed by the member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, provided in
Motions Nos. 8 and 12, seek to substitute the term “reasonable
grounds” currently used in Bill C-27 for the term “clear
grounds” used in UNFA.
Bill C-27 uses the term “reasonable grounds” for good reason.
This standard has been tested in light of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and has obtained approval from Canada's
highest court. It is equivalent to the standard of clear grounds
used in UNFA. I therefore would urge the House to understand
this reasoning and to vote against the proposed change submitted
by Motions Nos. 8 and 12.
I would now like to comment on the amendments proposed in
Motions Nos. 10 and 13 tabled by the member for Saanich—Gulf
Islands, which really refer to the point raised earlier on 7.01.
Both motions seek to substitute the consent of the minister for
the flag state's consent prior to exercising certain powers. Flag
state consent in the situations described in Bill C-27, for
example, sections 7.01 and 16.2, is required under international
law, which I explained a moment ago. To do otherwise would be
contrary to international law and Canada's obligations under the
United Nations fisheries agreement.
Finally, I would like to address the one amendment proposed by
the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore in
Motion No. 14 with respect to Canada's obligations under UNFA to
implement a three day waiting period before taking any further
enforcement action once on board the vessel of a state party to
UNFA. Adopting a shorter time period, as proposed by Motion No.
14, would put Canada in breach of its international obligations.
We certainly do not want to do that. We want other countries to
abide by the agreement and we should ourselves.
The government intends to prescribe the three day period in the
regulations to be made under Bill C-27. It would not be
practical to specify this period in the bill itself because if
this period was shortened we would have to amend, yet again, the
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The proposed amendment would,
therefore, not only be impractical, it would be contrary to the
United Nations fisheries agreement. For these reasons I would
urge the House to vote against Motion No. 14.
I encourage all members of the House, in order for us to move
ahead and continue to provide the leadership that we have been
providing with regard to fisheries around the world, to support
the government amendments I have talked about, Motions Nos. 15,
16 and 18, and reject the others I have mentioned for the reasons
outlined.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order
made earlier this day, the questions on the motions in Group No.
4 are deemed to be put and the recorded divisions are deemed
requested and deemed deferred.
[Translation]
Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions on the
motions at report stage of the bill now before the House are
deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred
until Tuesday, April 13, 1999, at the expiry of time provided
for Government Orders.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think you would find unanimous consent to see the clock
as being 5.30 p.m. so that we could proceed to Private Members'
Business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The parliamentary
secretary has asked for unanimous consent that the House see the
clock as being 5.30 p.m. Is their unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business, as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1650
[English]
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
The House resumed from February 9 consideration of the motion
that Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in
order to add social condition as a prohibited ground of
discrimination, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to this bill and to discuss an issue that
is important to many Canadians, the human rights issue in Canada.
Although I am not convinced it is the proper way to address the
issue, it at least raises the issue of human rights. Often a
discussion of it and the debate that surrounds this kind of
important issue helps to not only educate members of parliament,
but also to make sure that we put it on the front burner instead
of the back burner here in the House.
I am disappointed that this bill originated in the Senate. As
usual, anything that comes from the Senate is a little tainted in
the sense that it did not come from elected representatives,
those chosen by the electorate. Those people are chosen by prime
ministers, and that is unfortunate. We might say that the party
with convictions is over there. Unfortunately, the Senate is not
the place to originate bills. Bills should come from the House
of Commons, from both government and opposition benches.
Bill S-11 has good intentions. The bill is intended to add
social condition as one of the designations in the charter of
rights that cannot be discriminated against. I believe that the
intention of the bill was to make sure that poor people are not
discriminated against. That is what it amounts to.
While a lot of legislators may feel they are looking after the
poor by adding social condition as one of the listed items in the
charter, I do not believe this technical listing is going to add
another red cent or look after the needs of the poor at all, if
that is the intention. I do not believe it will change the
personal situation of the hundreds of thousands and maybe
millions of people who have the greatest needs in this country.
It almost makes a mockery of the real solutions to helping poor
people by easing the conscience of legislators who say “Maybe if
we just put this into the legislation then the poor people will
go away and we will not have to worry about the situations that
are causing the poverty and the distress for families and so
on”. That is almost worse than nothing. Then it means that
instead of putting together taxation laws and actions and
creating a society that gives poor people the greatest
opportunities, we somehow ease our conscience by putting a word
in the charter. I do not believe that will help people in the
long run.
I believe the Liberals have actually hurt the poor over the past
years. With their pay more, get less budgets they have gutted
health care without providing an alternative for most people.
They have hiked taxes to the tune of billions of dollars. They
now take $39 billion to $40 billion more out of the economy than
they did a few years ago. There is the usual waste in
government. We have been talking in the House over the last
while about the decline in the standard of living, the decline in
productivity and the decline in opportunities for Canadians, as
well as the tax discrimination against single income families.
Often some of the poorest families in the land are the single
income families and this government has chosen not to address
that taxation discrimination. It found itself before the United
Nations in a rather embarrassing situation trying to justify why
its tax laws discriminate against single income families.
Poverty is not just a children's issue, it is not just a single
income family issue, but it certainly does affect entire
families. People are not poor in isolation. Often they are poor
due to a whole set of circumstances.
Lowering taxes is one way to help those who are poor. That is
not just putting words in the charter, that will actually help
people. If we allowed them to increase their personal deductions,
a proposal put forward by the Reform Party, we would actually put
more money in their pockets, which would allow them to make the
decisions that would help them out of the poverty trap.
1655
Our proposals to end bracket creep and reduce taxes by some $26
billion over the next three years would help poor people the
most. They would take poor people off the tax rolls altogether.
That is what should happen.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I regret that I must
interrupt the hon. member for Fraser Valley.
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the
honour to inform the House that a message has been received from
the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed
certain bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the
honour to inform the House that a communication has been received
as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
March 25, 1999
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable John Major,
Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as
Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber
today, the 25th day of March, 1999 at 5 p.m., for the purpose of
giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-11, an
act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to add social
condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad we had that interruption. It is nice to know that the
Senate is actually doing something.
We have been talking about adding social condition to the
charter as one of the conditions that we would no longer be able
to discriminate against in Canada, although, again, I do not know
how we would define social condition. There is no definition in
the dictionary, so it is a hard thing to know exactly how to
define.
This leads me to the second point which talks about judicial
activism.
I am concerned that by adding another category called social
condition to the charter the lawyers are going to have a field
day trying to interpret for the benefit of the judges and to have
the judges rule on what social condition means. Will social
condition be used to justify all sorts of interference by the
courts into the lives of ordinary Canadians? How do we prove to
someone that a social condition is a discriminatory act?
1700
If we need to mail someone a letter, can we ask whether they
have a job, or a mailing address, or whether we can do a
background check on them? Would that be a discriminatory act? Is
it somehow meanspirited and nasty to ask people to do certain
things based on their social condition?
Other provinces have added social condition to their provincial
charters. Almost without exception they have not been able to
use it in the courts. It is so undefined it takes a lot of court
time and a lot of imaginative work by the lawyers with very
little constructive action on behalf of poor people themselves.
My concern for judicial activism is well grounded in recent
decisions that have happened here in Canada. Judges have taken
it upon themselves to write laws, reinterpret laws and rewrite
laws on behalf of Canada and override the express wishes of the
House of Commons. That is a bad trend.
We in this House have voted on the extension of spousal benefits
to same sex couples. I think that is a good subject to debate in
this place. We will hear good arguments pro and con. Regardless
of a person's personal position on it or what they may say in
debate, this is the place to decide those things. Instead the
courts step in and overrule what was an express decision of
parliament that I voted on in the last House. The courts say
that regardless of what was done in the House, they are going to
make that decision.
We in this place took a position on child pornography and said
it is wrong for people to use and possess child pornography. Then
a judge in my own home province stepped in and said, “I do not
care what you guys said. I am going to interpret that law
differently. I am going to strike down the child pornography
ruling”. And the justice minister said not to feel so bad, at
least it is only in my province. In my province, there is no law
now against the use and possession of child pornography.
When judges choose to step in and overrule and make the law in
huge decisions, like the Delgamuukw decision which has now tossed
my province into complete turmoil on land use and aboriginal use
of land issues, it causes havoc.
Within the Reform Party we believe that rather than allow judges
to exercise increased and increasing influence in Canada, there
needs to be a reasonable balance between the judiciary branch and
the legislative branch here in this place.
Part of that balance means that this House should have an
opportunity to be involved in the selection and appointment of
justices, in reviewing controversial decisions by a judicial
review committee, by ensuring that legislation has an adequate
preamble as to the purpose of the legislation, what we are trying
to accomplish with it, what we do not want accomplished with it
and by having good definitions within the law itself and so on.
There are lots of ways to make sure the House of Commons is the
supreme law making body in the country and that we do not turn
over, by abdicating our role to the judiciary, the chance to
unduly not just interpret laws but to actually make laws.
1705
The Deputy Speaker: I am a sad to advise the hon. member
that his time has expired. All comes to a good and timely end.
ROYAL ASSENT
[Translation]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable Deputy to His
Excellency the Governor General that this honourable House
attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the
Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
1715
And being returned:
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy to
His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her
Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a
consequential amendment to another act—Chapter No. 9.
Bill C-61, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, the
Pension Act, the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related
Benefits Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the
Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act and the Halifax Relief
Commission Pension Continuation Act and to amend certain other
acts in consequence thereof—Chapter No. 10.
Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act—Chapter No. 11.
Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import Measures Act and
the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act—Chapter No. 12.
Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation
of government services—Chapter No. 13.
Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act—Chapter
No. 16.
Bill S-20, an act to amend the Act of incorporation of the Roman
Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Mackenzie.
Bill C-73, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of
money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 1999—Chapter No. 14.
Bill C-74, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of
money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 2000—Chapter No. 15.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1720
[Translation]
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-11, an
act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to add
social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would first like to thank the member for Shefford who introduced
this bill on the important issue of discrimination to the House.
In my opinion, the Reform Party did not understand this bill at
all. It is totally wrong, totally false to say that social
condition has produced no result.
Let me say that, since 1977, when social condition was added to
the prohibited grounds of discrimination in Quebec's charter of
rights, 21 decisions have been handed down.
What tangible results did this have? It was recognized that
income security beneficiaries were a group whose social
condition was special. The member for Shefford is saying that
poor people have a special social condition. This, in my
opinion, can be easily proven.
From the 21 decisions handed down in Quebec, the first province,
I repeat, to add social condition to the prohibited grounds of
discrimination in its charter, five extremely important
conclusions were drawn.
First of all, it was established that discrimination based on
social condition is totally unacceptable and that people,
particularly the poor to whom housing may have been refused,
have a redress mechanism.
There are many legal precedents. There are many decisions on
social condition. And they make it clear to owners that
discrimination based on social condition will not be tolerated.
Those who are refused an apartment, because they supposedly do
not earn enough money as welfare recipients, have a redress
mechanism.
Second, the inclusion of social condition in the Quebec Charter
of Human Rights gave redress mechanisms to single parents. As I
already said, the rich, the well off and those who are free from
want do not need this kind of protection.
I do not understand why our Reform colleague would ask what
useful purpose it can serve. In view of the plight of the
disadvantaged, the legal precedents and the changes it has
brought about, that kind of comment is totally uncalled for.
Courts ruled in favour of single parents. One case comes to
mind, D'Aoust v Vallières. This was the case of a single mother
who had been refused a mortgage to buy her first house despite
the fact that she had an income of about $1,000. That decision
was handed down in the early 1980s. Her mortgage would have been
$300, which is what she was paying in rent.
Because she was a single parent registered for income security,
the credit union—I will not name it but it was a credit union
in the Quebec City area—refused to even consider her
application, even though she could qualify as a home buyer.
Also, some decisions recognized that social condition included a
criminal record, so the fact that somebody had a criminal record
was not an acceptable ground of discrimination. In other words,
social condition means something.
It means at least three things. First, it means education. It
also means income, personal wealth, general capital and, above
all, it means how people are perceived within the community,
according to social class.
Who would dare claim nowadays that the unemployed, welfare
recipients and single parents are not victims of stereotypes and
prejudice? But what is more, and more unacceptable still, is the
fact that such prejudice still has a voice in an institution
like the Parliament of Canada.
1725
I remind the House without hesitation that it is often Reform
members who promote social prejudice. I do not say all members.
Some are obviously very progressive, but a number are not. The
remark made earlier by our colleague shows that he is
unbelievably unenlightened, and I think his comments are
unworthy of a member of parliament.
We should not forget that we do not live in a society where
poverty is on the wane. We do not live in a society where the
number of poor people is dropping. We live in a society where
there are more poor people than ever.
A report by the OECD—not a report by the Bloc Quebecois or the
Conservative Party or the Liberal Party—a report by the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is
neutral, reminded us that Canada ranks third for poverty.
Our society is producing more and more poor and that is thanks
to government policies. Among industrialized countries, only the
United States and Australia have a worse record in this score.
What would social condition offer if it was included in the
Canadian Human Rights Act? It would offer redress to have a
number of sections in the Employment Insurance Act invalidated.
Which sections? Those who know human rights, those who know
Canadian law, those who, like me, have read all the decisions
handed down since 1978 know which ones.
That has led to significant improvements in the situation of
welfare recipients and single parents. I am willing to bet that
as soon as social condition is included in the Canada Human
Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination, we will be
able to challenge sections 7.2 and 7.3 of the Employment
Insurance Act, which discriminate against labour force entrants.
Those who have never had a job and who make their first
employment insurance claim must have 910 hours of work. They are
the only ones who have to meet that requirement. This is
discrimination. It is not equal treatment.
I am convinced that if challenges on the basis of social
condition were allowed under the Canada Human Rights Act, those
who are unemployed would win their case, because it must be
recognized that unemployment is a social condition.
The same goes for sections 12.3 and 22 regarding maternity
benefits.
Mr. Scott Brison: I agree.
Mr. Réal Ménard: My colleague agrees with me and it makes me
happy. That shows he has a progressive mind.
Mr. Scott Brison: I always agree.
Mr. Réal Ménard: He always agrees with me. I want to say he is
my friend.
We could challenge, based on sections 12.3 and 22, the 710 hours
eligibility requirement for maternity benefits, since that
requirement does not exist in other parts of the act.
I urge parliament to pass this bill brought forward by the
member for Shefford, and I think we would help those less
fortunate in our society by giving them the opportunity to
challenge and obtain redress, based on social condition, because
social condition is a reality. The poor are discriminated
against, and we must give them the opportunity to take their
case to a human rights tribunal.
1730
I hope all members of the House, including Liberal and Reform
Party members, will vote in favour of this bill.
[English]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, poverty is a recognized source of inequality and
disadvantage in society. In Canada the federal government has
lost or relinquished most of its capacity to support Canadian
citizens and is creating a culture that puts far more value on
wealth than on human values.
In the past Canada has managed to move away from discrimination
based on gender or ethnic background, but today we are moving
toward a system of discrimination based on wealth. On February
13, 1998, our party put forward the following motion in the House
of Commons:
That this House condemns the government for promoting an economy
where the gap between the super rich and ordinary Canadian
families is widening, risking the future of our youth, and
strongly urges the government to introduce in the coming budget
measures ensuring every Canadian an opportunity to share in a new
prosperity.
Figures tend to indicate that in today's economy a few are
getting richer while the majority of the population is not
getting a fair share of the wealth in our nation.
A recent report by the Centre for Social Justice indicates that
the average income for the richest 10% of families in 1971 was
$170,000, 21 times that of the poorest 10%. By 1996 Canada's
richest were making 314 times the average income of the poorest.
Bill S-11 is related to a recommendation from the Canadian Human
Rights Commission which calls for, among other things, an
amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act that would outlaw
discrimination against the poor.
Poverty is discriminatory enough. It prevents full
participation in society and can deny adequate housing. It
certainly affects educational opportunities and keeps a child in
hunger. As Canadians we must not add to that litany by giving
the poor no protection or recognition under our laws.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the case of Vriend v
Alberta that:
The law confers a significant benefit by providing state
recognition of the legitimacy of a particular status. The denial
of that recognition may have a serious detrimental effect upon
the sense of self-worth and dignity of members of a group because
it stigmatizes them—. Such legislation would clearly infringe on
section 15(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Code because its
provisions would indicate that the excluded groups were inferior
and less deserving of benefits.
Poverty is still not recognized as a source of inequality in
society. It is true that attitudes cannot be legislated, but
attitudes can be changed and can be challenged, especially when
decisions such as denying a service are based on discrimination.
We will support the objective of ensuring that poverty or social
condition cannot be used as a reason for discriminating in
Canada.
The NDP is a party that promotes an egalitarian society. We
believe in the role of the state in supporting a fair and
equitable distribution of the benefits or the wealth generated.
For us, society should be a humanistic one in which all members
are treated equally, with respect, dignity and fairness. The law
must protect a large segment of society that is being
discriminated against just because it is living in poverty.
[Translation]
I think it is important to note that the motion before us today
gives us an opportunity to speak to the issue of poverty in this
country. I believe that this week the Liberal government has
finally admitted that there was a great deal of poverty in
Canada, given that it is considering appointing a minister
responsible for the homeless.
It is interesting that the Liberal government would decide to
appoint a minister for the homeless. One would need to look at
why there are homeless people in this country today. There are
homeless people because there is poverty. I am pretty sure that
it is not the rich who are living in our streets. There are
very few rich street people out there.
We need to look at why they are in the street, why there are
people in my riding who have to go to the food bank, why there
are children going to school without breakfast. Teachers know
that when such children go home after school, there is probably
no supper for them either.
1735
It happens in the counties of Kent, Westmorland and Albert just
as it happens in Toronto, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland. We can pretend it is not there, but that will not
resolve the problem.
The Prime Minister has appointed the Minister of Labour as
minister responsible for the homeless. We are pleased he did,
but we must note that no money or information resources came
with the title. The minister was given a title. What is her
mandate? What resources are available? Who will be working
with her?
I also asked for a parliamentary committee to be struck.
We know that, if the minister is to really do her job, she will
have to review and criticize the policies of her own government.
When they changed the unemployment insurance program, they made
people poorer. People are not poor for no reason. There are
reasons.
Laws passed in this House continue to attack the poor. There
has to be someone to make sure that, when legislation is
introduced in this House, no group is attacked by it. It is
clear that with the changes to the unemployment insurance
program the poorest suffered. That is clear.
There needs to be someone to make sure it remains. I hope the
minister responsible for the homeless will have the tools and
the freedom to change the policies of her own party. That is
where the problem starts.
She will also need a committee.
If no members of the opposition work with her, how can we be
sure that her appointment is not just a title to hide behind?
We must make sure that the Liberal government does not find a
way to go outside the House and blame everyone else if there are
homeless people or poor children in our society so that it is
not held responsible. We must ensure that the minister has the
tools and latitude she needs to do her job.
Bill S-11 is necessary. This week, I took part in a press
conference with my Bloc Quebecois and Progressive Conservative
colleagues and our views on this are similar. I supported them.
I think that we must sometimes put aside all partisanship and
use common sense.
When I see something that can help someone in difficulty, I do
it. That is what I did this week when I supported the bill
introduced by my Bloc Quebecois colleague. The Progressive
Conservative Party joined in as well, but the Reform Party
refused. That is often the case. We are having the problems we
are encountering today because the Liberal Party is promoting
Reform Party policies. This is causing a serious problem.
I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in favour
of this bill. I have no problem supporting it, nor does my
party. We must start to pay attention to poverty, to the
discrimination that takes place when someone is prevented from
opening a bank account because they are on welfare. That is
discrimination.
If an individual living in poverty declares personal bankruptcy,
he will file for bankruptcy. That person will be told he must
have $1,500 to declare personal bankruptcy. The majority of
people living in poverty who declare personal bankruptcy do not
have $1,500. But the service responsible for managing personal
bankruptcies has this arrangement with the government, whereby
the child tax credit can be used toward paying this $1,500 fee.
The government takes that money out of the pockets of the family
to give it to the personal bankruptcy service.
1740
Once again, the children are the ones who are made to suffer when
their family is in dire straits.
These are but a few examples of how much injustice there is in
this country. I hope all opposition parties that object to the
growth of poverty in this country will work together to make the
Liberal government more accountable.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague, the hon. member for Shefford who sponsored Bill S-11,
asked me to convey to the House her deep regret at not being able
to take part in today's debate. The member for Shefford who has
become a leader in our caucus, a leader in the House and a leader
in the country on all issues relating to poverty, was called away
at the last moment.
I am therefore speaking for her when I thank all hon. members
who have spoken to this private member's bill. Honoured as I am
to speak on my colleague's behalf, I am equally proud to speak for
myself about Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights
Act in order to add social condition as a prohibited ground of
discrimination.
As its title indicates, the purpose of the bill is to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act so that no one can be discriminated
against simply because they are poor and to offer genuine
recourse when such discrimination occurs, for example, when a
landlord refuses to rent to someone on social assistance or a
bank refuses to open an account for them.
In light of all the contributions to the debate on the bill, it
seems that reservations about it are centred mainly on the
following two points. One is the wording which has been
criticized as too vague to achieve the desired results. The
other is the need for wider consultation or an indepth review of
the whole issue leading to a complete revision of the Canadian
Human Rights Act. I would like to take a few moments to respond
to these two objections before wrapping up the debate.
Many speakers have voiced concern about the wording. The term
social condition is considered too general. Questions have been
raised about the possible impact of too broad an interpretation
of the term and the legal implications that could result.
While social condition may seem a vague expression to some, I
want to point out that specialists in the area of human rights
and the Canadian anti-poverty movement prefer it to all others.
It allows for an individual situation to be interpreted on the
basis of a whole range of social economic factors, unlike the
word poverty which is deemed to be too narrow because it focuses
exclusively on economic factors.
Professor Jackman of the faculty of law at the University of
Ottawa said when she appeared before the Standing Senate
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs:
To entrench a prohibition against discrimination based on poverty
does not really encapsulate all dimensions of the type of
discrimination which people experience. That discrimination
relates not only to their economic circumstances, but to all the
social and political sterotypes that emanate from being poor.
Again, the advantage of talking about social condition rather
than poverty is that, within social conditions, we encapsulate
notions like source of income, receipt of social assistance,
perhaps even the status of being unemployed. These are all
conditions that tend to go together, but are not necessarily
always together.
Even Canada's chief commissioner of human rights, Ms.
Falardeau-Ramsay, the very person who would have to manage the
legal repercussions of this addition to the Canadian Human Rights
Act, has come out firmly in favour of the term social condition.
Incidentally in March 1998 Ms. Falardeau-Ramsay stressed with
respect to this whole issue that human rights were indivisible,
affirming that economic and social rights could not be separated
from political and legal rights or equality rights.
Finally, those who have expressed concern about this choice of
terminology should bear in mind that social condition has been
used in Quebec's charter of human rights and freedoms for almost
three years and was approved for more than a year by the British
Columbia Human Rights Commission.
Moving on to the second point of objection to Bill S-11, we find
it is primarily based on a perceived need to carry out an
expanded consultation with more stakeholders before this addition
is made to the act. We are told that it would be better to wait
for the next comprehensive review of the act announced by the
Minister of Justice several months ago.
I remind the House that the Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs held wide-ranging consultations before the
bill was passed by the Senate. It is possible that some points
of view were not heard during the process, but there is no reason
whatsoever to delay or prevent the passage of Bill S-11.
Interested parties who did not participate in the Senate's
consultations will still have the opportunity to propose any
amendments they consider helpful during the comprehensive review
of the act.
1745
By supporting this bill we can both correct a legislative
omission that for many years has been the target of criticism
from national anti-poverty organizations and at the same time
bring Canada into compliance with the recommendations made in
December 1998 and in 1993 by the United Nations Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
In so doing we will, among other things, be sending a strong
message across Canada that in this country discrimination against
poor people will not be tolerated. It is high time in my opinion
that fundamental human rights should be respected in a country
like Canada, especially the right to equal opportunity in life.
I would like to remind the House however, in the words of my
colleague, the hon. member for Laval Centre:
Entrenching Bill S-11 in the charter should amount to more than
wishful thinking. The best way to fight discrimination against
social condition is to improve the living conditions of our
fellow citizens who find themselves in difficult economic straits
incompatible with human dignity.
This government thus has an urgent responsibility to take
concrete action to ensure that justice is done to the most
disadvantaged members of our society.
Regrettably, as my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford said
in her original remarks to the House on Bill S-11, the general
obsession with deficit reduction often impels our political
leaders to take measures that add to the proliferation of laws
and regulations, making it more difficult for the poor and
blocking any possibility of their improving their situation.
This state of affairs confirms the popular belief that the
people with the power to change things, i.e., the people who make
the laws, often just do not realize the scale of the oppression
and discrimination suffered by their fellow low income Canadians.
As my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East so justly
remarked, “The greatest challenge for us is to get governments,
not just the Liberal government but all governments, to examine
their record and acknowledge their policies which have quite
deliberately and consciously created increased poverty within
Canada”.
We have an opportunity today as parliamentarians to do what
needs to be done by uniting our efforts as we did in 1989 with
the resolution on eliminating poverty. We can recognize social
condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination and include it
as such in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
At the present time the act is neither clear nor consistent.
While it aims at promoting equity for all Canadians, in effect it
perpetuates the discrimination it seeks to eliminate by
protecting only certain vulnerable groups.
The fact that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not include
social condition among prohibited grounds of discrimination is an
indication of the social and economic alienation of the poor and
of their lack of influence in the Canadian political system. To
correct this unacceptable situation, we must change our approach
and look at poverty from the human rights perspective.
It cannot be said often enough. The prejudices the poor have to
face in Canada are similar to those faced by the marginalized
groups who are listed in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Yet
poverty is still not recognized in law as a direct and dominant
cause of inequality and disadvantage in Canadian society.
In conclusion, I call on all my hon. colleagues in this House to
join me in rectifying this deplorable legislative omission by
voting for this bill.
Also I, like others, would like to wish all members, our pages
and our support staff an excellent and safe Easter break.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier this
day, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading
stage of Bill S-11 are deemed put and a recorded division is
deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, April 13, 1999 at the
expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
It being 5.48 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday,
April 12, 1999 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and
24(1).
May I also extend to all hon. members very best wishes for the
Easter break. I look forward to seeing all hon. members on their
return on April 12, 1999.
(The House adjourned at 5.48 p.m.)