36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 209
CONTENTS
Friday, April 16, 1999
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Third reading
|
| Hon. David Anderson |
1010
1015
1020
1025
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Wayne Gretzky
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
| COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Third reading
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN HEMOPHILIA SOCIETY
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| NISGA'A TREATY
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1100
| CHINA
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| UNITED STATES CUSTOMS
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| SASKATCHEWAN NURSES
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| SECHELT FIRST NATIONS
|
| Mr. David Iftody |
1105
| BILINGUALISM
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| EQUALITY DAY
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| WAYNE GRETZKY
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
| BENNY FARM VETERANS HOUSING COMPLEX
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| WAYNE GRETZKY
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1110
| SOCIAL INEQUALITY
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| TOM GUZIK
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| NELSON MANDELA
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1120
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. René Laurin |
1125
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. André Bachand |
1130
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1135
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1140
| KOSOVO
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1145
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| GRAIN
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| PENITENTIARIES
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1150
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CANADIAN FORCES
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
1155
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
| BOATING SAFETY
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1200
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Industry
|
| Mr. Ian Murray |
| PETITIONS
|
| Grandparents Rights
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Young Offenders Act
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Grain Shipments
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1205
| Gun Control
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Third reading
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1210
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1245
1250
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1255
1300
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1305
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1310
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1315
1320
1325
| (Vote deemed demanded and deferred)
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-440. Second reading
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1330
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1350
1355
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1400
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1405
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1410
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1415
1420
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 209
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 16, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.) moved that 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, be read
the third time and passed.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
This is a rather unique moment in Canada's history. As a follow
up to the initiative taken by the Prime Minister of Canada
yesterday in calling up the greatest hockey player ever and
encouraging him to stay on, I would like to seek unanimous
consent to put the following motion.
I would move that, in the opinion of the House, Wayne Gretzky
should not retire but should play one more season in the National
Hockey League. However, in the event that he decides to retire,
then consideration should be given to appointing Wayne Gretzky as
Canada's ambassador for hockey.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, as much as probably all
of us agree with the sentiments expressed in the motion, we
cannot agree to have a motion of the House incite someone to
making career changes or choices.
When Mr. Gretzky makes his decision, should we want to
congratulate him by way of a motion, I am sure all of us would
want to do that then, but I do not think we can accept the motion
as presently worded.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): As there is no
consent at this point we will proceed to debate.
Hon. David Anderson: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to
rise today in support of Bill C-27, which will enable Canada to
ratify the United Nations agreement on the conservation and
management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory
species, commonly known as the UN Fisheries Agreement, or UNFA.
The bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the
Canada Shipping Act. When Bill C-27 is passed and these acts are
amended, Canada will then be in the position to ratify the United
Nations agreement and the UNFA will then provide an important
tool for the protection of straddling stocks and highly migratory
fish stocks.
1010
[Translation]
I am pleased that the legislation has reached this final stage
of approval by the House. It has been a long process but the
outcome will be well worthwhile.
Once we have passed Bill C-27
and have ratified the UN fish agreement, we will then have
increased moral authority to encourage other states to ratify
the agreement.
We can get on with the job of seeing that this and other
international agreements to conserve the world's fisheries are
brought into force and implemented.
[English]
At this point I would like to remind the House of some of the
history which demonstrates the need for international action to
deal with overfishing of straddling and highly migratory fish
stocks and which eventually led to the development of UNFA.
By way of background we need to go back to 1977 when Canada, as
did many other nations, established the 200 mile exclusive
fishing zone. It is important to note that Canada's continental
shelf extends beyond the 200 mile limit and thus fish stocks
straddle the limit. This geographic situation has been a cause
for concern for Canada even before the fishing zone line was
created.
In 1979 NAFO, or the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization,
was created to take responsibility and to protect fish stocks in
the northwest Atlantic beyond Canada's 200 mile limit. This was
followed by the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea, known as UNCLOS, which was open to signature in
1982 and which came into force in 1994.
UNCLOS provides coastal states with the exclusive sovereign
right to explore, exploit, conserve and manage fisheries within
the 200 nautical miles from their shore. However, it only
provides general rules for co-operation and management of the
straddling and the highly migratory stocks.
Despite the advantages and the advances of NAFO and UNCLOS,
overfishing by vessels continued outside Canada's 200 mile limit
in the northwest Atlantic. This contributed to the decline of
straddling groundfish stocks of cod, flatfish and turbot.
In 1989, in response to scientific evidence of a serious decline
in fish stocks, Canada began a major campaign to end overfishing
in the northwest Atlantic. For example, in 1990 Canada hosted a
conference on high seas fishing in St. John's, Newfoundland. We
had experts there from coastal states around the world trying to
design new principles for high seas fishing.
During the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, the Earth Summit at Rio, Canada won international
support for the convening of a conference for the negotiation of
new arrangements to establish comprehensive rules for the
conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory
fish stocks on the high seas.
The UN Fisheries Agreement was concluded in August 1995 and
Canada was one of the first countries to sign. To date, 21
states have ratified the UNFA. This agreement requires 30
ratifications to enter into force.
During this time the international community developed other
instruments to deal with similar problems in the fishery. For
example, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, FAO, developed the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries and the FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with
International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing
Vessels on the High Seas, which is fortunately known by the more
convenient term as the Compliance Agreement.
Members of the House are well aware of much of this material so
I will not go into detail. I will only say that the FAO
Compliance Agreement and the FAO Code of Conduct are significant
steps toward greater fisheries conservation, but the United
Nations Fisheries Agreement that we are discussing today is by
far the most important tool that we could have.
1015
[Translation]
Why is UNFA so valuable? It sets up a new legal framework which
will provide the effective monitoring, compliance and
enforcement needed to protect straddling and highly migratory
fish stocks on the high seas.
Proper conservation and management of these stocks will make a
significant contribution to ensure the sustainability of this
important food source for future generations.
[English]
This will probably be one of the most important international
issues that faces the world in the 21st century. If we do not
take adequate steps to protect stocks of fish in the high seas,
within 20 or 30 years, indeed, within our children's lifetime and
perhaps our own we will see more than half the world's surface
cease to be a source of protein in food for human kind. Half the
world's surface will become a desert from the point of view of
feeding human kind. That is the issue. That is why it is so
important to work in this area.
Let us have a look at some of the main sections of the
agreement. First, under general principles, the UNFA provides
guiding principles for the conservation and management of
straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. These include the
precautionary principle whereby states must be more cautious in
their fisheries, scientific conservation and management decisions
when information about the fishery is uncertain, unreliable or
inadequate; compatibility between measures applied inside and
outside a coastal state's waters to ensure that measures adopted
by a coastal state in its waters for straddling fish stocks are
not undermined by measures applicable to the high seas; the use
of the best scientific evidence available to determine resource
status; and the minimization of pollution, waste, discards and
bycatch.
The second point I would like to stress is the obligation to
co-operate. This is an international area and international
co-operation is essential. The United Nations fisheries
agreement reiterates the law of the sea obligations for parties
to co-operate in the conservation and management of straddling
and highly migratory fish stocks either directly or through
regional fisheries organizations and arrangements. For Canada,
the two key organizations are the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organization, NAFO, which I mentioned earlier, and the
international convention for the conservation of Atlantic tuna,
those highly migratory stocks.
The UNFA also sets out general principles and obligations
regarding the setting up, functioning and strengthening of
regional fisheries organizations and provides rules concerning
the participation of states in such organizations. As we know,
the problem of non-members bedevils agreements of this type.
[Translation]
UNFA provides specific rules with respect to non-members of
regional fisheries organizations.
In effect, UNFA binds the parties to co-operate in the management
and conservation of straddling or highly migratory fish stocks,
whether or not they belong to a given regional fisheries
organization. Vessels whose flag states are party to UNFA are
bound by that organization's conservation and management
measures even if they are not party to the organization.
With respect to transparency, UNFA has provisions to oblige
regional fisheries organizations to be transparent in their
decision-making and other activities.
Intergovernmental organizations and NGOs that are concerned with
straddling and highly migratory fish stocks will now have an
opportunity for observer participation in meetings of these
organizations.
Some organizations—ICCAT for example—have already established
guidelines for their participation. NAFO and others are
considering proposals to do so.
Co-operation is a very important principle when it comes to
science and management. UNFA reiterates the UNCLOS principle
that states have a duty to co-operate in the conservation and
management of fishing resources.
1020
Specifically, this means that states undertake an obligation to
co-operate in exchanging and sharing scientific, technical and
statistical data and information concerning straddling and
highly migratory fish stocks, and also co-operate in finding the
right solutions for sustainable management of the resource.
UNFA requires flag states to undertake measures to ensure that
their vessels comply with regional conservation and management
measures and do not engage in activities that undermine the
effectiveness of such measures.
UNFA offers a strong compliance and enforcement regime, a regime
which allows states other than the flag state to take action,
such as boarding and inspecting a vessel flying the flag of
another state that is party to UNFA, without prior authorization
of the flag state, to ensure that vessels are complying with
conservation and enforcement measures developed by regional
fisheries organizations. These provisions are an important step
towards prevention of overfishing of stocks that straddle
Canada's 200-mile limit.
[English]
The eighth point is the dispute settlement procedures. Finally,
there are compulsory and binding dispute settlement procedures.
These procedures are established for disputes which arise out of
the interpretation or the application of the United Nations
fisheries agreement or regional fisheries agreements, such as the
NAPO convention which I mentioned before.
UNFA refers to the procedures set out in the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, which will apply to states that
are party to the United Nations fisheries agreement whether or
not they are parties to the law of the sea agreement. This is a
very useful technique which provides states that are parties to
the UNFA with an effective way to resolve disputes concerning the
conservation and management of those straddling and highly
migratory fish stocks.
The non-flag state enforcement regime and the compulsory and
binding dispute settlement procedure of the UNFA make it the
strongest existing international regime applicable to the high
seas.
I would like to say a word on the need for this bill.
[Translation]
The merits of UNFA are clear. Now we need to adopt Bill C-27 in
order for Canada to be able to fully implement the agreement.
Existing legislation is, for the most part, sufficient to allow
Canada to implement the 1995 agreement. There are, however, some
gaps. Bill C-27 is intended to allow Canada to assert the rights
meet the obligations set out in the agreement. By design
it goes no further than that.
[English]
We have worked hard. When I talk of hard work I would like to
pay special tribute to the hon. member from Malpeque for his
dedicated work in this House and in committee. We would not be
here with the possibility of this bill without his untiring
dedication. I believe that this should be recognized by all
members of the House on both sides.
The member for Malpeque and other members of the fisheries
committee, as well as members of this House from coastal ridings,
have worked hard to ensure that the bill is fully consistent with
the agreement. We will implement this legislation in a manner
that is fully consistent with our rights and obligations under
the agreement.
States that accede to the agreement and honour the obligations
that it sets out have nothing to fear from this legislation. We
will fully respect the safeguards that are set out in the
agreement.
Differences that arise, such as whether the obligations have
been honoured, will be negotiated between states, resolved within
the framework established by the regional fisheries organizations
or, as a last resort, submitted to compulsory and binding dispute
settlement.
1025
For ourselves and states which accede to and honour the
obligations set out in the agreement, the confrontations of the
past will happily be relegated to the pages of history. In our
view the agreement, once ratified by ourselves and our fishing
partners, will make an important contribution to conservation, a
sustainable fishery and constructive relations between states.
Once the bill is passed and subordinate regulations are made,
Canada will be in a position to ratify the UNFA, and I stand to
state on behalf of the Government of Canada that we will ratify
the UNFA when that stage is achieved.
The compliance and enforcement regime is the only part of the
UNFA that needs to be implemented by the adoption of new
legislation. That is why we introduced Bill C-27.
Canada has already begun to implement the agreement. At home we
are reviewing our domestic and foreign fishing policies to verify
that all of them are in compliance with the principles and rules
of the agreement. Internationally we are working to implement
the UNFA principles and rules within the regional fisheries
organizations to which we belong, such as the International
Convention on the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna and the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries Organization, as well as through our
participation and negotiations to create new regional fisheries
organizations, particularly in the western and central Pacific.
[Translation]
I am convinced that the general adoption and implementation of
these guiding principles and rules by which regional fisheries
organizations operate will improve the way we manage the world's
fisheries.
Once we have ratified UNFA, Canada can be a leader in urging
others to ratify it and to implement its principles, rules and
values, both within their jurisdiction and within regional
fisheries organizations throughout the world.
[English]
We cannot solve the problems of the world's fisheries alone, but
Canada intends to be a leader. With the UNFA and the other tools
at our disposal, and with the co-operation of our fishing
partners, we can bring an end to the destructive and wasteful
fishing practices of the past, and we must do that.
[Translation]
I therefore urge the House to move quickly to adopt Bill C-27.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today. I would like to say
that it is very nice to see the hon. Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans back and in good health after his accident.
As we speak, we are seeing an unprecedented situation. Never
before in the history of mankind have we seen our fish stocks
being decimated in such a rapid fashion. Not only have we seen
them decimated, indeed they are becoming extinct. From the east
coast of Canada to South Africa and to the west coast of Africa
to southeast Asia we are seeing fish stocks all over the world
damaged and destroyed by overfishing, habitat destruction and
pollution.
Internationally, as the minister said in his speech, we have in
front of us an enormous challenge. How do we provide fish and
fish species not only for our families to enjoy but for future
generations? From a morale perspective, how do we ensure that
these creatures, which have been on the earth longer than people,
continue to exist in the future? Therein lies the challenge.
To articulate the problem will take a long time, but we must
start. We have seen the raping and pillaging of our fish stocks
all over the world in an unprecedented fashion. International
communities and governments have been unable to put together a
framework with teeth to address this situation. That is what
this bill was supposed to do. That is what the international
agreement was for. Unfortunately, while this bill goes part of
the way, it does not have teeth to properly address this issue.
We are seeing fish stocks diminishing and becoming extinct all
over the world. This is a serious problem for all of us.
We are also seeing radionuclide cancer causing agents,
teratogenic agents, being increased through the food chain. We
are finding them not only in small fish but also in larger fish
and indeed large mammals. If we look at the beluga whale
population in the eastern part of Canada, we see an unprecedented
amount of cancer causing agents within their body masses. If we
look to the north and see the aboriginal people who live there
and consume a large amount of fish in their diet, we see an
unprecedented amount of these cancer causing teratogenic agents.
1030
Not many people are talking about this, as I know the member
from the other side who is from the north will articulate, but
the tragic manifestation of that is that we have found in their
populations an unprecedented number of babies born with birth
defects, people suffering from cancers at levels that we have not
seen in other populations, and numbers which are a silent tragedy
not only within our own country but in other countries that share
the north.
Earlier this week there were representatives from Russia here,
many of whom were from parts of northern Russia such as Siberia
and Irkutsk. Their aboriginal communities are suffering from
unprecedented levels of these cancer causing agents. Their
people are suffering from these cancers and birth defects. It is
a silent tragedy and is a direct result of the pollution that has
been dumped in the oceans of the world, affecting all of us.
We see pillaging by large boats that are going around the world
laying nets even in spite of international laws. These groups
show a wilful disregard for the fish stocks that exist today.
They will do whatever it takes to pillage and take whatever they
want.
One of the challenges of Bill C-27 and one of the challenges of
the UNCLOS was to put teeth into a document that will be able to
address these pirates of the high seas. In no uncertain terms
they will have penalties applied to them so that they cannot
continue to engage in the rape of our oceans which affects all of
us.
Destruction of the habitat is also occurring not only within the
oceans but also on land. In my province of British Columbia we
have a hodge-podge situation. The province is responsible for
part of the environment and the feds for the other. There is
very little co-ordination. As a result deforestation is taking
place to the edge of the rivers, which is destroying crucial and
critical salmon habitat.
Our response should be to create a system working with the
provinces to ensure that it does not happen. We also have a
situation on private lands where individuals have the ability to
engage in, and do engage in, the wilful destruction of habitat on
those lands, often high up in the river system. This has a
profound and damaging effect on the entire river system,
destroying habitat that is crucial for salmon species in
particular to be able to breed. This serious situation has
occurred for a long time and the minister has been unable or
unwilling to address it.
The private sector would be very interested in working with the
government to provide an equitable solution to ensure that the
habit is protected and that the interest in personal land is
respected. They are not mutually exclusive principles. We can
have personal ownership and still have the ability to protect the
land and the resources. When an individual's actions has a
profound and damaging effect on the entire ecosystem, it should
not be allowed but is going on right now.
It is one of the most important things that has led to the
destruction of the salmon fishery on the west coast. It is not
necessarily overfishing, which has had a profound effect, but it
is the damage of the habit. The desecration of habitat is the
single most profound factor in the destruction and decimation of
our salmon species.
That is clearly within the purview of the federal government and
the provincial government. My colleague, the critic for
fisheries from Saanich—Gulf Islands, and my other colleague from
Delta, both of whom have worked very hard to provide constructive
solutions to the minister, need to be listened to. Their
solutions need to be employed. The minister needs to work with
his provincial counterparts to make this a reality.
1035
There are things that can be done. Let us look at how fishermen
are suffering. Right now the government has made promises and
these promises have been broken. I will give the House some
examples of what it has been doing.
I have a letter from a constituent which was written to the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It articulates very clearly
how the transitional job fund that has been put forth by the
minister and promised by the minister is simply not doing its
job. It reads in part as follows:
Despite the announcement made by the minister on June 19, 1998,
very little has been resolved for displaced fisheries workers. Of
the $100 million promised for licence buyback measures, only
$23.4 million is accounted for.
A letter from the minister dated March 9, 1999, sent to me by my
colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, states that of the $100
million for habitat protection laid out and promised by the
minister only $6.5 million has actually been paid out. Some 6.5%
of the total amount of money designated for the critical
reclamation of habitat has been paid out.
The final $200 million as promised aid according to the
minister's letter is only being paid out at $41.7 million or
20.8% of the money. The rest, nearly 80%, has not been paid out.
This means that since the minister promised the money to be
forthcoming to fisherman and their communities over nine months
ago, less than 18% of the promised moneys has been paid out to
fishermen, their families and their communities. These people
are suffering. They are in his province. They are in my
province. They need help. They do not want handouts but they
certainly want to get back to work.
Many of the projects that are being put forth and funded by the
transitional job fund are not very useful for ensuring that the
people working in the fishing community will have another long
term sustainable job to go to, not a short term make work project
by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
There are solutions, some of which I will articulate. These
solutions would fulfil what we all want to see. We want to see
the rejuvenation of fish and their habitat in a long term
sustainable fashion.
One of the things for which we have been pushing for years is
fish farming. Many years ago Canada was a leader in fish
farming. What happened was that Chile and Norway usurped us and
now are world leaders in fish farming. Norway in particular does
it right.
We need to look at the example of Norway to see what it did
right. Within fish farming lie jobs that people currently in the
fishing communities who are unable to work at their traditional
roles can go into instead of trying to make fishermen information
technology specialists and computer specialist with an eight week
course when they are in their forties and fifties and have over
20 years of experience fishing. As they say, it ain't going to
happen.
We can train them and put them into jobs that may not be exactly
what they have done before but would certainly be congruent with
what they have traditionally done. To train them or to ask them
to map rivers and streams that have been mapped a dozen times
before is clearly an expensive make work project. Why not give
them the skills to do the work within fish farming, which could
create a lot of jobs.
In my riding we have proposed for years a hatchery on the Sooke
River. This hatchery in a community with over a 20% unemployment
rate could create over $90 million in spinoff benefits and
hundreds of jobs. In the community of Sooke 200 or 300 jobs
would have a profound, dramatic and positive impact on people's
lives. They would be working in something close to the land.
Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities would be provided
a mesh or a linkage between them, which would do a lot for
developing peace and harmony between communities that are
fighting over a diminishing resource. We must look at that.
Another example is Iceland which has done a remarkable job of
saving its fish. It has a long term sustainable fishing
industry.
When Iceland representatives approached Canada some years ago
they came with open hands and said that they would work with us
to rebuild our fishery on the east coast. What did they get?
Indifference and a cold shoulder from a country that has been a
leader in the fishing industry.
1040
We as a country, particularly our east coast, desperately needed
help. We desperately needed a plan to revise, revamp and
rejuvenate the economy but got absolutely nothing. Now we see
the payoff for that neglect. We see communities on the east
coast suffering and relying more and more on government handouts
and less and less on the ability to provide for themselves.
That has not only damaging effects on them as individuals but
profound and damaging effects on their economy and communities.
The social fabric of the communities on the east coast has been
torn apart as it is being torn apart on the west coast.
There are solutions. I am not for a moment advocating what has
taken place in southeast Asia which has engaged in fish farming
that has been absolutely destructive to its environment. We do
not need to adopt that, but we need to open our eyes and look at
countries around the world which have done an excellent job of
saving their fish and providing a long term sustainable fishery.
I will go back to Iceland for a second. It tries to focus on
getting the maximum value per fish. As a result it has managed
to ensure that each fish caught, particularly in a sports fishing
capacity, generates an awful lot of money. I believe it is $80
to $100 per fish.
In the difficult times of today with the difficult decisions
that have to be made what I will say is politically incorrect but
in my view needs to be discussed. Less reliance has to be put on
purse seiners, on those large fishing vessels that vacuum the
ocean.
The minister wants to buy back. The process he is engaged in,
the so-called Mifflin plan, will centralize fishing in a very
small number of hands. Those hands will be the big boats. The
argument they will put forth is that by having fewer boats fewer
fish will be caught. That is not true and the reason is that the
technology of today will merely expand to fit the boats. These
boats can catch much more than they do. They just need the
opportunity to do it.
The Mifflin plan is destroying and taking away the fishery from
small individual operators and putting it into the hands of large
fishing boats, many of which are owned by the large fishing
corporations and packing groups. Does that do much for
employment? No. Does it do much for increasing value added fish
products? No, it does not. We should be striving for maximum
value and maximum employment in a sustainable fashion for the
fishing industry in Canada. That is not what the government's
plan is doing and that is not what is happening now.
It can be done. The government has heard from from my
colleagues from Saanich—Gulf Islands and from Delta—South
Richmond constructive, effective and pragmatic solutions to deal
with the problem. All we have had is basically a blind eye. I
will give the minister credit. He had a lot of courage this year
in closing down some fisheries and in the process saving some
species. For that he ought to be congratulated.
If we are to protect our fish, which came to light a few years
ago, enforcement is critical. DFO enforcement officers are
beside themselves. They try to enforce the laws but people
higher up in DFO have meddled in their affairs and prevented them
from doing that. As a result the best enforcement officers, if
they have been doing their jobs, have in fact been marginalized
and those who have played the party game in the bureaucracy have
advanced.
1045
The DFO bureaucracy has been pulling the teeth of the
enforcement officers preventing them from enforcing the law,
which is a complete outrage. Strong enforcement of our present
laws and the respect of the minister, deputy minister and the
people high up in the echelon are needed so that the enforcement
officers will be supported and protected in doing their jobs.
The scientists in DFO have to be supported and encouraged
because whatever plans we have must be based on good science.
Over the last few years in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
and with this Liberal government politics has overridden good
science.
A case in point is the cod fishery on the east coast. A couple
of years ago cod stocks were shown to be increasing a bit. What
did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans do? The minister said
he would open it up for a limited cod fishery in spite of the
fact that the scientists had said we were having an increase in
our cod but to do nothing and let it ride a bit so the numbers
could increase. For purely political reasons prior to the last
election the then minister opened up the fishery. He destroyed
the ability of the cod fishery to sufficiently expand and have a
long term sustainable fishery.
It speaks of a problem the scientists have been having in DFO
for a long time. In spite of their hard work and diligence, in
spite of their tenacity in finding the best solutions possible,
the mucky-mucks on top and the politicos kept their answers and
solutions under wrap. They forced the scientists not to say
anything and rapped them on the knuckles when they did. That is
idiotic.
Those studies are funded by the taxpayer. The taxpayer has a
right to know what they are. As a result I would submit to the
minister that all scientific studies done by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans be made public. All interested parties
could then look at them and know what is going on on the ocean
floor. Everybody would know the number of fish there, the
projected fish stocks, what we need to do to save them and what
we might be able to do in terms of fishing them sustainably.
These are things we have to determine.
The number of fish that are going to be pulled out have to be
based on sustainable quotas and the quotas have to be based on
good hard science. They cannot be based on politics. Politics
has killed our fishery historically.
We have enormous challenges ahead of us not only within the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans but also in the policies we
enact domestically and internationally. The minister's speech
indicates that he is very interested in this issue. I know he is
very interested in stopping the habitat destruction, the
pollution and the other elements of overfishing that have gone
into destroying not only our fish stocks but the fish stocks of
many others.
Polluters in our country and around the world are continuing to
dump damaging toxic carcinogenic materials into our oceans. This
has long term and profound effects not only on fish but also on
mammals. The minister must work with the Minister of the
Environment to implement tough laws, laws which have teeth, to
penalize those individuals who are wilfully polluting our oceans,
rivers and streams. At the present time many polluters at best
get a rap on the knuckles and at worst nothing. Because of short
staffing in both the Department of the Environment and the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans these things are simply not
enforced.
With respect to Bill C-27 and the UN convention on the law of
the sea, one of our great challenges on both the east and west
coasts is the foreign fishing vessels which come into our waters,
pillage our fish and then escape outside the 200 mile zone.
Unless some rigid specifications are met, our interdiction
officers cannot apprehend these boats once they get outside the
200 mile zone. That should not happen.
1050
Pirates of the sea should not have anywhere to escape to if they
are pillaging the oceans. Oceans have no boundaries. There are
no lines indicating “this is ours and that is yours”. The
pollution and damage that takes place in the oceans affects all
of us. We can no longer turn a blind eye and let it continue.
In closing, I implore the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to
work with the Minister of the Environment and the provincial
ministers to develop constructive plans, as he has heard here
from across party lines, to address pollution, habitat
destruction and overfishing. Without those, we will not have a
fishery in the ocean and species will become extinct. All
species will suffer. Not only will it be the fish in the sea
that suffer, but we will suffer as well.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
WAYNE GRETZKY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the
various political parties.
It is fair to say that this is Wayne Gretzky day in Canada. We
recognize the Great One is agonizing over what he should do in
terms of his future. In light of this moment, I would like to
seek the unanimous consent of the House to put the following
motion. I move:
That, this House recognizes the outstanding contribution that
Wayne Gretzky has made to Canada's national sport.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have no
problem with this motion, and as a friendly gesture, I would now
like to read the French version.
Que le Chambre reconnaisse la contribution extraordinaire que
Wayne Gretzky a apportée à notre sport national.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys have the consent of
the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is there agreement to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, 18,
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, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, it is a bit amusing to in the House to speak on a
bill right after a tribute to the great hockey player Wayne
Gretzky. I hope the Canadiens will forgive me. I will try not
to skate around the issue but rather will attempt to explain the
bill we are examining.
Before addressing Bill C-27, whose purpose, I would remind
members, is to implement the United Nations Fisheries Agreement,
it is necessary first of all to see what that agreement is all
about. I will then look at how Canada intends to Canadianize
certain parts of it.
I have a copy in front of me of the United Nations Agreement,
and I think it is important to review it. I would like to begin
by reading its preamble.
This is an agreement that will go down in history and will
govern all countries on the earth, if more than 30 countries
ratify it in the coming weeks and months.
In its preamble, the agreement states:
The States Parties to this Agreement,
Recalling the relevant provisions of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982,
Determined to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable
use of straddling fish stocks—
This refers to the stocks which straddle or migrate across
exclusive economic zones.
Resolved to improve cooperation between States to that end,
Calling for more effective enforcement by flag States, port
States and coastal States of the conservation and management
measures adopted for such stocks,
1055
I am still reading the preamble:
Seeking to address in particular the problems identified in
chapter 17, programme area C, of Agenda 21 adopted by the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, namely, that
the management of high seas fisheries is inadequate in many
areas and that some resources are overutilized; noting that
there are problems of unregulated fishing, over-capitalization,
excessive fleet size, vessel reflagging to escape controls,
insufficiently selective gear, unreliable databases and lack of
sufficient cooperation between States.
Committing themselves to responsible fisheries,
Conscious of the
need to avoid adverse impacts on the marine environment,
preserve biodiversity, maintain the integrity of marine
ecosystems and minimize the risk of long-term or irreversible
effects of fishing operations,
Recognizing the need for specific
assistance, including financial, scientific and technological
assistance, in order that developing States can participate
effectively in the conservation, management and sustainable use
of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.
Convinced that an agreement for the implementation of the
relevant provisions of the Convention would best serve these
purposes and contribute to the maintenance of international
peace and security,
Affirming that matters not regulated by the
Convention or by this Agreement continue to be governed by the
rules and principles of general international law, have agreed
as follows.
And so forth.
Why do I take the time to read the foreword? This document sets
out and puts on the table the general philosophy of the
countries signing it. I would like to make a few comments at this
time.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We must go
to Statements by Members and this would seem like a good time to
interrupt. There would be 35 minutes left in debate when next
the member has the floor.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADIAN HEMOPHILIA SOCIETY
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House that April 17, 1999 is World
Hemophilia Day.
This year in Canada approximately 50 newborns will be diagnosed
with hemophilia, an inherited blood clotting condition caused by
deficiency of two blood proteins.
The impact of hepatitis C and HIV-AIDS on the hemophilia
community has been devastating, bringing many challenges. The
Canadian Hemophilia Society provides support and services to
Canadians who live with the disease. The society has responded
to the increased challenges with programs and services that
endeavour to meet the needs of all persons living with hemophilia
and those also infected with hepatitis C and/or HIV-AIDS.
Please join me in congratulating the Canadian Hemophilia Society
and its compassionate volunteers for their work and dedication.
* * *
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty is winding its way through the B.C.
legislature. The NDP government is ramming it through using
something the Liberals are well familiar with: closure. The
federal Liberals have indicated they intend to ram it through
parliament, likely using closure as well.
Are these two governments right or wrong? I guess that depends
on your point of view. If these governments are dictatorships,
then I guess they can do whatever they want. However, if they
are a democracy, they have to listen to the people, a rather
bothersome concept for both of these parties.
What are the people of B.C. saying? Three regional plebiscites
on the Nisga'a treaty have all rejected it by over 90%. The 25
public meetings I held in my riding indicate the same level of
rejection.
British Columbians want aboriginal issues settled, but in a
manner that works for all. A treaty that places aboriginal
assets and powers in the hands of a few does not benefit most
aboriginal members. A treaty that provides special benefits to a
few on the basis of race does not resolve past differences for
anyone. If the Liberals want to end western alienation, they had
better start listening to the people of the west, all of them.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the United Nations has designated 1999 as the International Year
of Older Persons.
Canada has one of the most rapidly aging societies in the world.
In 1951 less than 10% of the population was over 65 years of age,
but 30 years from now, we can expect one in five Canadians to be
over 65.
1100
However, our seniors are vital participants in all walks of
life. In Canada 69% of seniors provide some kind of support or
help to spouses, children, grandchildren, friends and neighbours.
An estimated 23% of Canadian seniors contribute some time each
week to unpaid volunteerism and the value of that volunteerism is
estimated to be as much as $2.3 billion per year. Seniors are
also the largest per capita donors to charities.
These are but a few of the reasons why it is appropriate for
1999 to have been designated the International Year of Older
Persons. This is our year and our special opportunity to honour
and thank our seniors for their special contribution to the lives
of all Canadians from sea to sea to sea.
* * *
CHINA
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
whenever a Chinese leader visits Canada there is always the
public discussion of human rights in China.
This is an important issue and needs to be discussed. However,
the debate often obscures another reality in China.
This was brought home to me last week when I visited a small
rural village in the mountains of Guangdong province in southern
China. There I met a young woman who told me a story about
Premier Zhu Rongi, when he first became premier, who, when he saw
the poverty that so many Chinese live in, said, with tears in his
eyes, “What kind of premier am I that our people live in such
poverty”.
As a result, Premier Zhu is working hard to bring decent health
care to rural China. He insists that all children get an
education and he strives every day to create the conditions that
will give those children a better future.
This is a perspective that is not often heard in North America
and one that we should consider when we rush to condemn.
* * *
UNITED STATES CUSTOMS
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have very serious concerns on the U.S. administration's proposed
fee for the use of the U.S. customs' automated system. Canada
moves by truck. Close to 80% of merchandise trade with the
United States is by road. Members in the Chamber appreciate that
this fee, being considered to help fund a much needed upgrade of
automated commercial operations, would increase the cost of
Canadian exports to the United States.
We acknowledge the need for and efficiency of upgraded automated
commercial operations. Indeed, it has become an essential and
vital component of international trade. Goods and the
information associated with them must travel quickly to respond
to the needs of just in time inventory management systems and the
pressures of global competition.
I suggest the proposed new levy would be a customs user fee of
the type that is prohibited by Article 310 of NAFTA and therefore
inconsistent with U.S. obligations under NAFTA.
I commend the Minister of International Trade and the Canadian
ambassador in Washington for registering our strong opposition
and urge them to vigorously continue this challenge. Canadian
traders deserve nothing less.
* * *
SASKATCHEWAN NURSES
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as a former health care practitioner and now as a member of
parliament from Saskatchewan, I am appalled by the undemocratic
and arrogant action taken by NDP Premier Roy Romanow to end the
nurses strike in our province.
While refusing to represent the interests of health care
workers, the Saskatchewan government has rammed through back to
work legislation in just six hours. Now the NDP is threatening
the provinces nurses with fines and jail time if they do not
comply.
The actions of Saskatchewan's NDP premier are causing hospital
closures and forcing patients to seek treatment out of province.
This is because the NDP will not bargain in good faith with
nurses and the government refuses to enter binding arbitration.
Consequently, nurses are being forced to accept unfair wages. As
a result, the nursing shortage and poor working conditions will
continue.
Hopefully Saskatchewan voters, just like their counterparts did
in Ontario and as they will soon do in British Columbia, will
vote to remove yet another out of touch, socialist NDP
government.
* * *
SECHELT FIRST NATIONS
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
our government marks another important milestone in Canada's
history with a treaty signing with the Sechelt First Nations in
British Columbia.
In the short time since we began charting a new course with the
aboriginal people under our initiative called Gathering Strength,
we have concluded landmark treaty agreements with the Sechelt and
Nisga'a in British Columbia, and we have witnessed the birth of a
new territory called Nunavut. These historic events reflect the
spirit behind Gathering Strength.
Each agreement reflects solutions that are uniquely suited to
the needs and aspirations of various aboriginal communities,
respecting the diversity of our country that is a hallmark of
Canadian federation.
This government has demonstrated its dedication to fairness and
justice through the negotiation of honourable treaties. We are
determined to reconcile the past so that we can plan for a
brighter future.
Today, with aboriginal people in Canada, we share our common
future with pride and dignity.
* * *
1105
[Translation]
BILINGUALISM
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
federal policy on bilingualism is a failure.
Out of one million francophones who were living outside Quebec
in 1996, 350,000 have been assimilated by English speaking
Canadians in their daily activities.
This is not the opinion of Quebec sovereignists, nor even of
representatives of Canada's francophone minority, but of Neil
Morrisson, who was the secretary of the royal commission on
bilingualism and biculturalism, 30 years ago.
In spite of the superficial changes made over the past 30 years,
there has never been a concrete and effective plan of action to
reverse this tendency, which leads directly to the integration
of hundreds of thousands of francophones in Canada.
Quebec, through Bill 101, which was sponsored by the late
Camille Laurin, passed effective legislation to ensure that
French would thrive in Quebec. Will the federal government have
the courage to take concrete action before it is too late?
* * *
EQUALITY DAY
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
April 17 is equality day.
This day marks the 17th anniversary of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a
remarkable initiative taken by the government of the Right Hon.
Pierre Trudeau.
[English]
The Liberal government and the Prime Minister are committed to
the principles in the charter and the resultant jurisprudence,
just as we are dedicated to the linkage between human rights and
economic prosperity with our trading partners.
The charter of rights and freedoms guarantees freedoms already
enjoyed by Canadians and formulates new rights. The charter
broke new constitutional ground respecting mobility rights,
equality rights, minority language educational rights, gender
equity and multiculturalism.
Since 1982 courts at all levels have dealt with thousands of
charter cases, some decisions seriously impacting public policy
debate. All Canadians can be proud that this is a country which
celebrates equality and human rights.
* * *
WAYNE GRETZKY
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
December 30, 1981. I will never forget that night.
Wayne Gretzky took to the ice with seconds remaining on the
clock. The Great One was only one point away from scoring 50
goals in 39 games. My sons were cheering. I, along with
thousands of fans were chanting, “Come on, Wayne, let's go. Come
on, Wayne, let's go”.
The puck found Wayne's stick as if by magnetic attraction. The
Flyers could only watch as Wayne made that memorable shot.
He shoots, he scores and the fans went wild. Single-handedly,
Wayne Gretzky brought finesse back to hockey. With it, he
brought untold delight and sheer wonder to millions of fans in
North America and throughout the world.
Wayne is in a class by himself. Wow, what a Canadian. There
will never be another like No. 99. Now his records belong to the
ages.
On behalf of all Canadians, thank you, Wayne, thank you very
much.
* * *
BENNY FARM VETERANS HOUSING COMPLEX
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize and
congratulate three heroes in my riding of
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
At about 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, March 11, 1999, residents of one
of the new buildings in the Benny Farm Veterans Housing complex
were alerted to a fire in a ground floor apartment at 3500 Benny.
Janitor Deszo Bogdanyi; co-ordinator of technical operations,
Patrice Bouvette; and maintenance man, Robert Gadbois, all
members of the maintenance staff of Canada Lands Corporation,
were able to guide everyone to safety.
While one woman was left with severe burns and many apartments
were flooded, residents were quick to credit these three men with
the prevention of further injuries and damage, thanks to their
quick, efficient and selfless actions. The new building's cement
walls and extensive sprinkler system were also instrumental in
helping to contain the fire.
For these three men to enter that burning apartment in total
darkness and dense smoke to rescue a wheelchair bound woman and
her unconscious husband is truly a deed of heroic proportions.
I congratulate them.
* * *
WAYNE GRETZKY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, today is Wayne Gretzky day in Canada.
Today all eyes are on the Great One, Wayne Gretzky, the most
outstanding hockey player ever, as he agonizes as to whether he
should continue to play professional hockey for another year or
not.
We, as representatives of the citizens of Canada, wish to
acknowledge that no single player has done so much to elevate the
status and quality of Canada's national sport as has Wayne
Gretzky.
1110
Wayne Gretzky symbolizes what is best about hockey and about
sports generally. Not only is he an outstanding hockey player
and athlete, but he is also an outstanding citizen of Canada.
As he deliberates on his future at this hour, we wish him well.
In the event he decides to retire, we urge the Government of
Canada to consider appointing Wayne Gretzky as Canada's permanent
ambassador of hockey.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL INEQUALITY
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according
to Statistics Canada, between 1970 and 1995, wealth has
gradually been concentrated in fewer hands.
This confirms the statement that “the rich get richer and the
poor get poorer”.
During this period, the share of the aggregate income going to
families at the bottom of the income ladder diminished somewhat,
while the share of families at the top increased.
Statistically speaking, between 1970 and 1995, the increase in
the actual average family income varies from 19.4%, in the case
of families at the bottom of the income ladder, to 37% for
families at the top. The result is that 30% of the families held
a greater share of the aggregate income in 1995 than they did in
1970, while 70% of all families had to do with less.
Do we still need to remind the House that this even greater
concentration of wealth calls for a comprehensive review of our
ability to reduce social inequality, in this era of
globalization? When will we have the courage to do such a review?
* * *
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
sovereignists' violons are not always in tune.
On the weekend, in Rivière-du-Loup, the Bloc Quebecois will be
voting on proposals that may give their cousins in the Parti
Quebecois some food for thought.
The Bloc members will be asking the Quebec Premier, Pierre
Bouchard, sorry, Lucien Bouchard, to cut the focus on his
personal views on Quebec's partnership with the rest of Canada.
In fact, the Bloc wants to cut Pierre Bouchard, oh, sorry,
Lucien Bouchard's power to decide the next referendum.
Perhaps Jacques Parizeau, the new Bloc Quebecois researcher, has
something to do with this.
We will see on the weekend whether Jacques Parizeau or Pierre,
oops, Lucien Bouchard wins at arm wrestling.
Perhaps Premier Pierre, or rather, Lucien Bouchard will wonder
just what the Bloc is doing in Ottawa, as others are doing.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
recently received a fax from a constituent, Phylys Wolfe, who
wonders just how many more hare-brained scams the government can
think up to drive fishermen crazy and into the poor house.
This time it is a MED and safety and firefighting survival
course on board fishing boats. This law was supposed to be in
effect since 1997 but no one thought to tell the fishermen about
it until this winter.
There are 3,200 licences in the Scotia Fundy region,
representing about 10,000 fishermen. The government expects all
these fishermen to take this course. This will cost every
fisherman $700 out of their own pockets for this five day course.
There are only five people in all of Nova Scotia to teach this
course and they can handle only 24 people per course. Those who
do not have a certificate for this course are liable to lose
their boat, their licence or receive a fine.
If a skipper hires a crew for one week, one month or two days,
that person is supposed to have this course. Now—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Thunder Bay—Atikokan.
* * *
TOM GUZIK
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 14 years ago Tom Guzik, a hard-working immigrant from
Poland, started the first computer retail store in Thunder Bay.
It was only a decade later that he expanded into the emerging
field of corporate computer training.
Last weekend, at the age of 33, he was honoured as one of
Thunder Bay's most successful young entrepreneurs by the city's
chamber of commerce.
When the Thunder Bay market became crowded with retailers, Tom
branched out into services like corporate computer training,
Internet services and electronic commerce. Today his company is
the biggest Internet provider in Thunder Bay.
Tom's success is a testament to Canada's being a land of
opportunity and choices. His ingenuity, tenacity and work ethic
is typical of what we see in many new Canadians.
We congratulate Tom Guzik and the other members of Thunder Bay's
business community who were honoured by the chamber of commerce.
* * *
NELSON MANDELA
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, not long ago
we had the great honour to receive Nelson Mandela in this place.
Mr. Mandela has been an uncompromising champion of equality in
South Africa.
1115
In 1953 he said “We have been banned because we favour a
policy which affords fundamental rights to all, irrespective of
race, colour, sex or language.”
Yet in 1999 the government is preparing to embrace the Nisga'a
treaty, an agreement built upon core principles that Nelson
Mandela spent 27 years in jail fighting.
The treaty embraces Nisga'a government and it allows them to ban
businesses, professions, trades and even trade unions. It is a
deal based on special status and different rights based on race,
and it diminishes the rights of all Canadians, especially
grassroots Nisga'a.
Mr. Mandela said upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize “It
remains our hope that we will be blessed with sufficient reason
that our new society cannot be created by reproducing the
repugnant past, however refined and enticingly packaged ”.
It is too bad that Canada's academics and political leaders have
not learned this simple truth.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
all the reports indicate that the Canadian forces in the Balkans
are doing the job they have been asked to do and they are doing
it very well.
Our CF fighters thus far have flown over 100 sorties against the
Serb forces. Prior to the war the Department of National Defence
allotted $103 million for the purchase of precision guided air to
surface missiles. One hundred sorties represents a lot of
ammunition.
How much new money has the Minister of National Defence budgeted
to replace the depleting stocks to make sure our pilots can
continue their NATO commitments?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have the figure with me, but obviously the
funds necessary to carry out the mission to help the people of
Kosovo return to their homes will have to be found and allotted.
I hope the hon. member's language means that in spite of the
negative comments by his finance critic we will have the support
of the Reform Party to enable our forces to have the funds to do
the job required.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister knows full well that he has the support of the
Reform Party when it comes to the issue of Kosovo.
I am simply asking this question of the defence minister. The
budget for defence is about $9.5 billion. New money has to be
found for this war effort. Where is it coming from and how much
has been assigned?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the incremental costs
for the deployment of the 12 CF-18s, the ones that are over there
now, for six months, is estimated to amount to approximately $10
million, excluding munitions.
Due to the fact that it is ongoing, we will have to wait to see
how long we will be over there before we can give a final
account.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are asking about the cost of the munitions. How much money is
being spent on munitions and how much more has been assigned? It
is a very simple question and one that the government should have
addressed some time ago but refuses to do so.
Again I ask the parliamentary secretary: How much additional
money, new money, is being addressed to the issue in Kosovo?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is being worked on by the Department of National
Defence. At this time we do not know exactly how long the
mission will continue. There are issues involving the extent of
Canada's participation in the air war.
I appreciate the positive comments of my hon. friend and the
comments that he is making on behalf of his party. Certainly the
government will have the funds necessary to carry out the mission
in question.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the international peacekeeping force proposed by Germany
is getting increasing support from both NATO and non-NATO allies.
However, there is very little on the public record about the
view of the government.
I ask the minister responsible: Who is going to be in control
of this force? Are we going to participate and what other
countries are going to participate in this proposed peacekeeping
force?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at this point nobody, including the Germans, have
made any specific details as to who would be involved.
The important objective is to get the agreement of the Milosevic
government to have an international presence to protect the
refugees and to make sure that the integrity of any peace
agreement is honoured.
1120
There is a proposal that, once that basic level of agreement is
met, there could be a meeting of the G-8 foreign ministers to
discuss in more detail the responsibilities, the command and the
contributions. However, at this point in time, as I have said in
the House before, it is basically a principle and a concept. No
one has yet put forward the specific details which the hon.
member is requesting.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party would like to propose a constructive
solution to the minister.
The Russians could be a very useful tool in this force. The
inclusion of Russia would be more acceptable to the Serbs.
Does the minister agree that Russia is critical to any
peacekeeping force and what efforts are being made to secure
Russian involvement in the proposed peacekeeping force?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I reported to the House yesterday, I had a very
long and extensive discussion with the Russian foreign minister
yesterday on this topic.
We talked about the broad outlines of a peace plan. We also
talked about the important role that Russia could play in helping
to bring it about and whether there could be a Russian
contribution.
As I reported to the House, I think the discussion was very
constructive. I found the Russian foreign minister to be very
anxious, as we all are, to find a peaceful resolution.
I can assure the hon. member that we are engaging actively with
Russia, as are other countries, to make sure they will be able to
work in co-operation with us in finding a solution.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is Friday,
and we have been questioning the government all week to find out
something of what is going on in the Kosovo conflict, but the
more we ask, the less we feel we know. The other side is
getting us used to half truths, I-don't-knows and undivulged
information.
Given the positive state of debates in this House and the
support the government is getting from the opposition for a
proper intervention in the Kosovo conflict, could there not be a
change in attitude on the government side and could it not
provide a little of the information which we are entitled to and
which the Americans are getting from their President?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it may be of interest to the hon. member to know
that yesterday afternoon I spent two and a half hours at the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
giving a full briefing and answering something like 60 or 70
questions about Kosovo.
I gave those answers to the extent of what I knew. I gave the
committee the responses that we could provide and I tried to take
into account all of the recommendations that were made.
I spent two and a half hours before a committee, combined with a
briefing last week. We have agreed to have bi-weekly briefings.
We are here in question period every day. We provide any written
materials required. I think that we are keeping Canadians and
the opposition particularly well informed.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
should understand that the issue is not about taking part, but
about supplying answers. That is what we would like.
We learned this morning, for example, that President Clinton was
asked by the Pentagon to call up 33,000 reservists. If, in the
States, they are asking the President to call up 33,000
reservists, does that mean they are getting ready for an
invasion in the Kosovo area soon?
Something is on the move. Does this have implications for
Canada? We would like to know.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States is fully
responsible for whatever decisions he takes within his own
country, just as we take our own sovereign decisions in this
country.
As we said in the House, there has been no decision by NATO on
any activation of ground forces other than for peacekeeping
purposes. We have made no decision within this government. As
the Prime Minister has said, we will consult with parliament
before any decision is made.
The Americans are doing that to support whatever activities they
may be doing. But I can give the hon. member every single
assurance that what we have said about the Canadian position
still stands.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, President Clinton
has informed Americans on the cost of their involvement in
Kosovo. It seems to us that Canadians would be entitled to the
same information and to know how much this operation is likely
to cost them.
Without questioning the necessity of our participation, might we
know what budget envelope the government has set for its present
operations in Kosovo?
1125
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I said earlier is still relevant. It is too soon
to determine the overall cost of military operations, including
our support for humanitarian activities. These figures are being
developed. They are being looked at in light of issues such as
the length of the air operations.
As further information is developed we will be providing it
through the Minister of National Defence to the House. At this
stage, to have definite information depends on certain
hypothetical assumptions which have yet to be tested.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again
yesterday we learned that NATO had requested additional
participation by Canada. We also learned that the war could
last a number of weeks, if not months, more.
Would it not be appropriate for the government to announce,
after 23 days, what the extent of our financial involvement in
the conflict is and what projections have been made, so that our
commitment for the coming months may be assessed?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I have already stated, we are speaking at this time of situations
that are more or less hypothetical. Obviously, the necessary
analyses are in the process of being done at National Defence.
Once the situation with regard to our involvement in the broadest
possible intervention is known—and this is still
hypothetical—the necessary information will be given to the
Canadian public and to the House.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a diplomatic
solution in Kosovo depends on the United Nations. The Minister
of Foreign Affairs understands that. He must also understand
that the same is true for consideration of the German plan and
the uniting for peace resolution.
Since the success of the German plan is not guaranteed, what is
Canada waiting for to present such a resolution to the security
council?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said yesterday, it is very important to continue
with the negotiating process between all players in the Kosovo
crisis, particularly the UN secretary general, the Russians and
NATO members.
As I told the NDP members of the national defence committee at
the last meeting, it is very important to look at all options.
But, right now, the best option is to pursue the German
proposals and to continue to encourage the interest of all
players in the plan. This is a national priority.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we
should not wait on the sidelines. We should not just be
examining all options, we should be advancing all options.
Canada should be working now to build support at the United
Nations for UN sponsored solutions to the Kosovo crisis. While
co-operating fully with other promising initiatives, why not
advance the uniting for peace initiative? Why not ensure that
every diplomatic avenue is being aggressively pursued?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the meetings held this morning between the Prime
Minister and the Premier of China, the Prime Minister made a very
specific point of raising the Kosovo issue and engaging the
Chinese, who are important members of the security council, to
gain their support for a resolution. The agreement was that we
would work together to see how we could co-operate.
While we differ on the nature of the crisis and the response to
it, I can report to the House that the Prime Minister's
discussions with his counterpart from China were quite
constructive. He has asked the two foreign ministers to maintain
the dialogue on how we can work together in a co-operative
fashion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday morning, in testimony before the American senate
committee, Hugh Shelton, chief of defence staff of the U.S.
army, said that he had informed the American president that air
strikes would achieve military goals and reduce Milosevic's
military strength.
1130
He also informed the American president that he doubted that air
strikes would achieve the political objectives, which include,
of course, the return and the safety of the Kosovars, in other
words, humanitarian objectives.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree with these statements
or not, and might it be that NATO is achieving its military
objectives but failing to achieve its political and humanitarian
objectives?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I must confess I do not know which official he is
talking about. If it is an elected official from the congress,
they can say just about anything.
The fact of the matter is that in recent discussions we have had
with officials at the U.S. administration, they are very
committed to the maintenance of the air campaign. They are very
committed, as is well known, coming out of the NATO ministers
meeting just last week, to ensuring that we have a consistent
coherent policy in NATO that supports the campaign, but at the
same time undertakes a dialogue and negotiations that are being
followed at the present time.
That is the position of all NATO governments.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, for
the minister's information, Mr. Shelton is General Baril's U.S.
counterpart. He does carry some weight.
This American General Baril even spoke of inconsistencies
between military and political objectives. In other words,
whether there are 400, 700, or even 1,100 planes, as expected,
or 6, 12, 18 and now about 20 for Canada, events seem to back
Mr. Shelton up: the air strikes appear to be reducing
Milosevic's capacity, period.
Can the minister confirm that the success of these political and
humanitarian objectives therefore depends on sending in ground
troops?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think it makes sense to assume that whatever is
said before a committee of the U.S. congress or by somebody in
the United States to the press involves the decision making
process in Canada. We make our own decisions based on our own
assessment of the situation.
Certainly if requests are made for additional planes, they will
be considered, but at this stage there are no decisions to commit
additional planes.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, an internal e-mail from RCMP superintendent Terry Smith
states: “We are bankrupt. We cannot afford to provide the
service expected of us. The tools to accomplish the job are
being taken away. This is only the tip of the iceberg”.
RCMP officers are unable to conduct investigations into
organized crime, or even to fix their cars due to lack of
funding. Why has the solicitor general gutted the RCMP to the
point of bankruptcy?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP have a $1.2 billion budget. In
the last budget the RCMP received a $37 million increase.
My hon. colleague is well aware a resource review is taking
place with my department, the RCMP and Treasury Board, to make
sure that the dollars are spent properly and that we are able to
address organized crime in an efficient way.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, while the department's resource review is under way, the
RCMP are telling us they do not have the resources to even
investigate organized crime.
We have been after the solicitor general for six months to
permanently fix the problem. Instead, his government continues
to waste hundreds of millions of dollars on a gun registry that
any beat cop is going to tell him does not work, and is spending
billions of dollars on millennium parties and statues.
Will the solicitor general use what little influence he has in
cabinet to increase the RCMP funding to a level that allows them
to do their work?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we are addressing the
problem.
We do have a resource review. My hon. colleague is well aware
too that a very few months ago we did find $10 million to address
a problem in E division. We did enact DNA legislation. We did
put 13 proceeds of crime units in place. The proceeds of crime
units are in place in fact to take the proceeds out of crime.
That is what the government is doing to give our police forces
the tools to do their job.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once peace
accords have been signed for Kosovo, Canada will have a moral
obligation to take part in the peacekeeping process, in
humanitarian aid operations and in the rebuilding of a
devastated Kosovo.
1135
Could the Prime Minister guarantee that, when the time will come
to rebuild Kosovo, the government will have earmarked the
necessary funds and budgets to fulfil the commitments that it
will have to make to contribute to this reconstruction process?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at this point, the Canadian government has allocated
$15 million to provide assistance in Kosovo, and we are
currently engaged in discussions over a plan of action for the
Balkan region. This plan will include a number of initiatives
relating to the reconstruction process, governance and
assistance to support democracy.
Canada will actively participate in these talks, and once the
Minister for International Cooperation has examined all the
costs involved, there will certainly be a report to parliament.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given that
European Union members have already pledged to sign a solidarity
pact for the Balkans which will include trade agreements and
economic assistance totalling at least 250 million Euros to
promote political stability in the countries of the region, can
the Prime Minister tell us if Canadian assistance to rebuild
Kosovo will be provided separately, or if Canada as a member of
the OSCE intends to become a party to the larger pact proposed
by the European Union?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we certainly endorse fully the proposal that to
ultimately gain stability in the region we have to deal with the
region as a whole.
The tragedy in Kosovo is a tragedy that has been experienced in
many other parts of the region and by all peoples of that region.
The time has come for us to try to address it in a comprehensive
way. We fully endorse the notion of developing a broad based
approach to the Balkans in economic development terms, governance
terms and the support of democracy and civil society. I can
assure the hon. member that Canada will participate.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's lax immigration policies are making news in Washington.
It is so bad that a congress committee cited this Liberal
government's immigration policies as a major threat to their
national security.
Is the immigration minister proud of the fact that under her
tenure Canada is known as a launching pad for terrorism and drug
trafficking? Is she proud of that fact?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the
Reform Party member did not read the representations made by all
the witnesses who testified before the U.S. Senate committee.
The majority of these witnesses stressed the sustained
co-operative efforts of both countries to fight drug trafficking
and illegal immigration.
This is why, here in Canada, there is very good co-ordination
between the immigration department and my colleague, the
solicitor general, who is responsible for the RCMP and for CSIS,
and also our American partners.
There is no point in alarming the public. On the contrary, we
are co-operating with—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Dewdney—Alouette.
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the minister would do more than actually read reports
and take action in here, we might see this broken immigration
system fixed. The minister has had four years to clean up her
act and all we see is window dressing. When is the minister going
to wake up, stop talking and implement concrete measures to fix
the broken system which has become known as an easy mark to drug
traffickers and terrorists?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a vision of members
of the Reform Party. When they speak about immigration policy or
refugee policy, their first reaction is to speak about criminals
instead of trying to help people, instead of trying to attract
more immigrants to this country, instead of trying to protect
more genuine refugees. This is the Reform Party's vision but it
is not the vision of the Liberal government.
* * *
1140
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the week's events in Kosovo have been tragic ones: rapes, burned
villages, tens of thousands of refugees forced to flee.
Meanwhile, the Canadian government is refusing to hold a vote on
a peace plan, refusing to hold a vote on sending troops, and
releasing information in dribs and drabs.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
With this heavy-handed attitude, is the government not running
the risk of stirring up dissension among the various political
entities in Canada, instead of doing its best to avoid them, as
is its duty?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to recent polls, the majority of the public are behind
the government's policy. We had a very important debate in this
House a few days ago.
The hon. member is referring to matters that are merely
hypothetical. If the situation changes, it is very possible
that the government will again consider the matter of a vote.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that the government's
offhand attitude to Canadian parliamentarians is harmful to the
consensus that is required between all Quebecers and all
Canadians on our involvement in this conflict?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the government House leader, 131 MPs took part in
the Kosovo debate. The ministers held both official and
unofficial briefings for the opposition critics.
If the hon. member feels that the stakeholders are in the
process of changing positions, she had not given any facts to
back that up. At this time the Canadian public supports the
position of the government and the opposition parties.
* * *
[English]
TRANSPORT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Following the recent tragic air accident at Gaspé, L'Association
des pilotes de brousse du Québec has expressed concerns about Nav
Canada's plans to close yet another flight information centre,
this time the one at Roberval.
When the Gatineau airport was facing similar cuts in services,
the minister directed Nav Canada to revisit its decision and
address the safety concerns of users. Will he now order a full
review of Nav Canada's plans to consolidate flight information
services in the province of Quebec?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to
the hon. member that safety is the number one factor and our
chief concern. I am sure he is quite aware of that fact. We
have carefully monitored the situation in the Gaspé regarding Nav
Canada services in the province of Quebec.
At the present moment, we must announce to the public that
everything is according to regulations. Safety is number one and
we are—
An hon. member: Answer the question.
Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes, my answer is addressing the
question.
I would like to point out that we are sticking to the regulation
and are chiefly concerned with the safety of—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Penticton airport is an important asset to the economic
viability of the south Okanagan.
Transport Canada has mismanaged the negotiations to transfer the
airport from the federal government to the city of Penticton. The
process has completely broken down due to a land tenure issue
with the Penticton Indian band. The parties are at a stalemate
which threatens the closure of the Penticton airport. The
Minister of Transport will not even answer telephone calls from
the mayor of Penticton.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the
government stop ignoring this problem and appoint a mediator to
resolve this situation and get people back to the bargaining
table?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that
Transport Canada has finalized negotiations with the city of
Penticton for the transfer of the Penticton airport. The city
signed the agreement to transfer on September 25, 1998. The date
for the transfer of the operation to the city has been extended
to May 15, 1999.
1145
The band council advised on March 23, 1999, that it did not wish
to sign the proposed documentation and opposed the transfer of
the airport. Transport Canada will continue to discuss the
band's concern in an attempt to reach a Canada-band agreement to
deal with the land if it is no longer required as a public air
zone.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
expulsion of Albanians from Kosovo resumed with a vengeance
yesterday and is continuing with violence, with approximately
half of the Albanians now having left their homeland.
The Prime Minister has just met with his Chinese counterpart to
try to convince him of the need for UN security council
involvement in the war in Kosovo.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Since China will
not budge, and given the rate of expulsion, what does NATO
intend to do to prevent the entire Albanian population from
being forced out of Kosovo?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said earlier, the Prime Minister had a good
meeting this morning with the Premier of China.
During the meeting, there was a very important exchange of views
about the Kosovo situation. There is an agreement to continue
to co-operate on developing an agreement in order to underscore
the importance of the UN and the importance of developing a UN
initiative to resolve this major crisis.
* * *
[English]
GRAIN
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board.
With the Chinese premier in Ottawa today and as China has been a
traditional customer for Canadian grain, are there any positive
developments in the grain business between Canada and China?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the grain trading relationship between Canada and China
stretches back over 40 years. It has involved during that period
of time over 110 million tonnes of Canadian wheat exports based
upon a very strong and effective working relationship with the
Canadian Wheat Board and the extraordinarily high quality of
grain produced by Canadian farmers.
I am pleased to confirm that yesterday I joined with Chinese
Trade Minister Shi to witness the signing of a new memorandum of
agreement between the Canadian Wheat Board and the China national
cereals import corporation. For Canada the value of this
transaction is estimated at more than $100 million.
* * *
PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general just spent $11 million to upgrade the Grand
Cache jail to medium security. Now the bureaucrats want to spend
millions more to turn the jail back to minimum security.
Surely the solicitor general realizes this just does not make
any sense. When, for heaven's sake, will he order his officials
to stop these acts of lunacy?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to my hon. colleague,
it was a medium institution and now it will become a minimum
institution because that is the requirement of Correctional
Service Canada.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
received a letter from Environment Canada stating that the
Muskoday Indian reserve near Prince Albert got a grant for almost
$100,000 to plant trees on the reserve.
The letter states that funds are only granted to non-profit and
non-government organizations. Why did the environment minister
approve this grant to the reserve government in clear violation
of departmental guidelines?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of the
Environment I can assure the hon. member that we will take his
representation into account and examine the grant in question.
I should add, however, that the understanding of the officials
of the Department of the Environment is that the grant is in
conformity in all respects with the law.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last fall
when the minister of agriculture finally admitted there was a
full blown income crisis down on the farm, he conceded that it
was worse in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Yesterday the parliamentary secretary had AIDA statistics
available for P.E.I. and Ontario. Would he please inform the
House today as to the number of applications the department has
received and processed from Manitoba and Saskatchewan?
1150
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am unable to
give those statistics.
Very few applications have come in from Manitoba and
Saskatchewan to this point. In the meantime, both provinces have
set up repayable loan programs which will take care of the spring
cropping expenses, because it was understood that Saskatchewan
and Manitoba did not have provincial disaster programs to
piggyback on, like Alberta, P.E.I. and B.C. did.
It may take a little longer for those two provinces to come in
with their application forms, but there is money to carry them
over.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
problem with the AIDA program according to the farmers I have
spoken to is that the government has managed to get the emphasis
on the duh rather than on the aid.
In fact the Federation of Agriculture describes the application
forms, not the booklet incidentally, as elaborate and charges
that AIDA is all about saving money, not saving farmers.
How does the parliamentary secretary respond to the CFA or the
Nixons of Earl Grey, Saskatchewan, who want AIDA redesigned in
order to make it more accessible to the people it was supposed to
help?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the
government were interested in saving money it would not have an
AIDA program at all.
The minister has offered to meet with the people in Saskatchewan
to discuss their problems. To this date they have not accepted
the minister's request or proposal or offer to meet with him and
talk with him about their situation. They would rather go to the
press, go to accountants and so on, to vent their views.
The minister stands ready to meet with the producers of
Saskatchewan at any time that they are ready to do so.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Deep cuts to CHST transfers over the past six years have had
serious consequences. All Canadians, and in particular our
patients, have lost faith in our health care system.
These cuts have also been deeply felt by those who deliver our
health care services, particularly our nurses. Their
compensation and working conditions have deteriorated
continuously for the last six years. Nurses are on strike in
Saskatchewan and have just been legislated back to work in
Newfoundland.
Will the minister acknowledge that the real source of these job
actions is the federal health transfer cuts to our provinces?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is very proud that the first thing we did after
digging the country out of the deep hole in which we were put by
the Progressive Conservative Party during nine ruinous years in
office, was to reinvest in our most important social program, our
health care system.
Just weeks ago, $11.5 billion was added to transfers to the
provinces so that over the next five years health services could
be improved, integrated and made as accessible as they must be.
Part of that initiative was in favour of nurses. We created the
nurse fund, which through research and other measures will help
put nurses in the important place they must occupy in our health
care system.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
let me remind the minister that at least for the nine years that
we were in government we had a decent health care system which we
do not have today.
Everyone in the country knows that nurses are underpaid,
overworked and understaffed. Will the minister acknowledge that
even with the Minister of Finance's recent so-called health care
budget there is still a significant crisis in our health care
system?
How many more health care budgets will we need to get back to
the level of funding that was there when the Minister of Health
took office in 1993?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in addition to the largest single investment the government has
ever made, the $11.5 billion in increased transfers to the
provinces so that they could meet their responsibility for
delivering health care services, we also announced in the budget
$1.4 billion of spending by the federal government in health
research, establishing the Canadian Institute of Health Research
and virtually doubling the investment in health research over the
next three years; an intervention to promote health and prevent
disease, especially early intervention with children; and
initiatives in aboriginal health like home care on reserves.
These are signals and signs of a government deeply committed to
our health care system, to its quality and to its future.
* * *
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the defence committee commented extensively in its quality of
life report about the need to help injured and retired Canadian
forces personnel.
Could the parliamentary secretary to the minister tell the House
about any new initiatives to assist injured and retired Canadians
forces members?
1155
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the initiatives
we are most proud of is the centre for the care of the injured.
The Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans
Affairs officially cut the ribbon for the centre a couple of days
ago.
The centre will provide timely and accurate information to
members and their families concerning pensions, pension
entitlements, assistance with applications, help with advancing
claims and questions for the bureaucracies of the two
departments. The centre will ensure that no one is neglected or
falls through the cracks.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government study released last month says that young people
are among the hardest hit by the unemployment insurance reforms.
For example, students who work part time and earn over $2,000 a
year—not a lot of money—have to pay EI premiums but have no
chance of receiving benefits because they are full time students.
Since these students in effect have no coverage, why is the
government forcing them to pay insurance premiums?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everybody pays EI premiums.
That is the way the system has been based.
We have moved from a system that was based on weeks of work to
hours of work, precisely to assist more workers to be covered by
our system. It is working well for workers who were not covered
before.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Are they interested in the
answer? It is the first time in three years a member of the
Reform Party has asked a question on the EI system and they do
not even bother to listen to the answer.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of National Defence contradicted the
Prime Minister on the request to sent additional planes to
Kosovo.
The Prime Minister said that six additional planes had been
requested, whereas the Minister of National Defence said that no
specific number had been given. These unexplained contradictions
show the state of the government's disorganization in this
business.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Could we, 24
hours later, have an answer on the number of CF-18s that NATO
asked the Government of Canada to provide?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, NATO asked for additional
planes. The request is currently under study, and the
government will respond shortly.
* * *
[English]
PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
holding in my hand a job posting for what seems like a really
great job in the federal public service: Space Agency, $40,000 a
year. The only problem is that under the heading who can apply
it says “Persons residing within a 500 kilometre radius of
Ottawa”.
What if my son or daughter from Winnipeg were qualified and
wanted to take this position, or some kid from Halifax or
Vancouver or Edmonton? What does it matter where they live in
the country if they are qualified for the job?
Will the government commit to stopping this unfair hiring
practice and giving every Canadian equal opportunity to good
public service jobs like this one?
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Government
of Canada accepts all applications from wherever they live from
coast to coast to coast.
On this specific item, I will take it under advisement and look
into it.
* * *
BOATING SAFETY
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
coast guard budget has been drastically cut since it merged with
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
In order to cut costs DFO has reneged on its responsibility for
boater safety. Literally thousands fishing boats and pleasure
crafts are on the water daily, many without modern electronics.
Now they are increasingly in danger because of DFO budget cuts
for buoys, channel markers, lighthouses and other navigational
aids.
What is the minister doing to ensure the safety of our fishers
and recreational boaters?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be aware, and I am
surprised he is not, of the new regulations with respect to
recreational boating safety. These have received wide coverage
and go a long way to dealing with some of the problems we have
had and some of the 200 deaths per year in the recreational
boating area.
The coast guard does not compromise safety. We are doing the
absolute maximum we can for safety and search and rescue in every
area.
Obviously there are budget limitations. We could always do more
if we had more money. But within that budget we are doing an
excellent job. I want the member to pay attention to that.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1200
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official
languages the government's responses to 14 petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present in both official languages the 16th
report of the Standing Committee on Industry.
In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, October
20, 1998, your committee has considered Bill C-235, an act to
amend the Competition Act (protection of those who purchase
products from vertically integrated suppliers who compete with
them at retail) and agreed on Thursday, April 15, 1999 to report
it with the following amendments: delete the clauses and the
title of the bill.
* * *
PETITIONS
GRANDPARENTS RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as the
consequences of death, separation or divorce, often grandparents
cannot have access to their grandchildren. The provinces of
Quebec and Alberta have a provision now which will guarantee that
grandparents have access to their grandchildren.
The petitioners would like to see the House of Commons support a
private member initiative, Bill C-340 so they can have the same
right as it exists in some provinces.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to present five petitions on behalf of
the people of Dauphin—Swan River.
In the first petition the petitioners pray that parliament enact
legislation such as Bill C-225 so as to define in statute that a
marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a
single female.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
my next petition is timely due to the young offenders
legislation. The petitioners pray that the House of Commons will
support the changes to the Young Offenders Act.
GRAIN SHIPMENTS
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
my next petition deals with the port at Churchill. The
petitioners request that parliament advise the Canadian Wheat
Board to deliver its grain shipments to the port at Churchill as
that offers the most advantageous costs to producers and to
require conveyers to guarantee seamless car interchange between
CN, CP, Hudson Bay railway and other short lines.
1205
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
this petition deals with the gun control bill. The petitioners
request that parliament repeal Bill C-68 and redirect the
hundreds of millions of tax dollars being wasted on licensing
responsible firearm owners to more proactive programs such as
putting more police on the streets, more crime prevention
programs, more suicide prevention centres, more women's crisis
centres, more anti-smuggling campaigns and more resources for
fighting organized crime and street gangs.
THE SENATE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): In my last
petition, Madam Speaker, the good people of Dauphin—Swan River
request parliament to advise the government to summon a fit and
qualified person democratically selected by Canadian citizens who
are residents of Manitoba, to take their place in the Senate of
Canada when seats become vacant.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
on behalf of a number of Canadians, including from my own riding
of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world
in countries such as Indonesia and Kosovo. They also acknowledge
that Canada is recognized internationally as the champion of
internationally recognized human rights. The petitioners
therefore call upon the Government of Canada to continue to speak
out against human rights abuses around the world and also to seek
to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we will be
answering Questions Nos. 197 and 206 today.
.[Text]
Question No. 197—Mr. John Herron:
With regard to the upcoming influx of 220 newly unemployed
Canadians which will result from the impending closure at Lantic
Sugar in Saint John, New Brunswick, does the government have a
plan to assist them in finding new jobs and, if so, what is the
plan?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): The Lantic Sugar plant is scheduled for
closure on December 31, 1999.
Since the announcement of this closure, the provincial
Department of Labour put in place an adjustment committee to
assist affected workers. Both union and management are
represented on this committee and the following types of services
have been provided to workers to date: assistance with the
writing of resumes; counselling assistance; self assessment,
labour market information, job interview, role playing and job
search technique sessions; and assistance on how to contact
potential employers and followup.
Representatives from the local Human Resources Centre of Canada,
HRCC, have been meeting with company and union officials since
May 15, 1998 on this issue and a designated HRCC employee has
been meeting with union officials to answer any questions workers
have related to Employment Insurance, EI, benefits.
The HRCC has also offered to hold information sessions for all
Lantic Sugar employees, in conjunction with union and management,
to discuss EI and severance packages. The first session was
scheduled for March 18, 1999 at 9 a.m., with subsequent sessions
on March 25, 26, 29 and 30. These sessions took place on the
employer's premises and involved approximately 20 employees per
session. There were also special arrangements made to assist
affected workers to apply for EI benefits as the date for the
layoff approached.
In addition, the adjustment committee is working with companies
in the Saint John area that may consider applications from some
Lantic Sugar employees, which could result in the hiring of some
of these affected workers.
HRCC staff, in partnership with the adjustment committee, are
always available to provide information and assistance. These
employees are encouraged to take advantage of the services
provided by the adjustment committee and the HRCC.
This assistance was conducted through the new Labour Market
Development Agreement, LMDA, through which the Government of
Canada is now providing the province of New Brunswick with over
$240 million for the next three years to help people get back to
work.
Question No. 206—Mr. Gilles Bernier:
With respect to the Parliamentary Precinct Directorate of the
Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada: (a)
how many public servants are employed with the Directorate: and
(b) how many staff departures have there been since June 1997?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): (a) A core group of nine Public Works and
Government Services Canada, PWGSC, employees is permanently
assigned to the Parliamentary Precinct Directorate. These are
management and administrative people reporting to the Director
General of the Parliamentary Precinct. This core group is
responsible for the planning and management of all the
department's real property related work on Parliament Hill.
The majority of real property work on Parliament Hill falls into
two streams: project management, which includes planning and
delivering major projects; day to day management of the
buildings, which includes operating the buildings and responding
to user requirements.
PWGSC employees with expertise in either project of day to day
management are assigned to the Parliamentary Precinct from
personnel pools known as Centres of Expertise. These assignments
are for short or long duration, depending on the nature of the
work. Upon completion of their assignment, employees return to
their Centre of Expertise for reassignment.
At present 40 full time equivalent positions are working in the
project management stream and 52 are in the day to day management
of the buildings stream. These employees come from a broad range
of professional and technical backrounds and include architects,
engineers, project managers, plumbers, carpenters,
administrators and others.
The Parliamentary Precinct is comprised of the Centre, West and
East Blocks, Library of Parliament, Wellington, Victoria, La
Promenade, Justice and Confederation buildings.
(b) There have been 27 departures in personnel since June 1997.
The reasons for these departures include transfers, new jobs,
reassignments, retirements and executive interchange.
[Translation]
Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Speaker, I ask that all other questions
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that you
would find consent for the following motion. I want to assure
you and the House that there have been discussions among all the
parties. I move:
That no later than the expiry of Government Orders today, all
questions necessary to dispose of the motion for third reading of
Bill C-27 shall be deemed put, a recorded division deemed
requested and deferred until Tuesday, April 20, 1999 at the
expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, before oral question period, I read the preamble
of the UN agreement on fisheries. I repeated that it was
important to talk about that agreement, since Bill C-27 seeks to
implement it.
I would like to go back to a number of points mentioned in the
preamble. For example, the preamble refers to “calling for more
effective enforcement by flag States, port States and coastal
States of the conservation and management measures adopted for
such stocks”. The members who are listening to me, and people
who are watching us on television realize that this paragraph
ties together three major links, namely the flag state, the port
state where the landing of fish will occur, and the coastal
state in whose waters the fish is caught.
There are other important points to mention. The countries that
will ratify this agreement are conscious of the need to avoid
adverse impacts on the marine environment and minimize the risk
of irreversible effects of fishing operations. At this point,
the countries agree that rules of law must be established to
achieve these goals.
A little later on, we will see what it means to establish rules
of law to make sure there are no irreversible effects.
1210
The preamble also recognizes “the need for specific assistance,
including financial, scientific and technological assistance to
developing States”.
It is very important that member states, or those that will sign
the agreement, agree to help coastal countries or states that
have large bodies of water, but not necessarily the means to
manage them. Unfortunately, we do not know how the costs will be
shared.
Of course, it is clear from the agreement that the signatories
are giving themselves two years in which to come up with
solutions not necessarily apparent at this stage.
The final, and I think the most important, point in the preamble
is “convinced that an agreement for the implementation of the
relevant provisions of the Convention would best serve these
purposes and contribute to the maintenance of international
peace and security”.
Canada can come up with wonderful ideas, but they must be shared
by other countries and put down in writing so that everyone
agrees to observe them. This is where it gets interesting.
Now I will relate this to Bill C-27, which tries to make UNFA
subject to Canadian law.
I will take article 21, sub-regional and regional cooperation in
enforcement, paragraphs (5) and (6).
Paragraph 21(5) of UNFA provides that:
21. (5) Where, following a boarding and inspection, there are
clear grounds for believing that a vessel has engaged in any
activity contrary to the conservation and management measures
referred to in paragraph 1, the inspecting State shall, where
appropriate, secure evidence and shall promptly notify the flag
State of the alleged violation.
What about the time frame? Paragraph (6) of article 21 provides
that:
The flag State shall respond to the notification referred to in
paragraph (5) within three working days—
So, if a long weekend is involved, it could be longer. It could
even be as long as six days.
This is the spirit of the letter in the UN Fisheries Agreement.
Now, what does Bill C-27 do?
It provides the following change to subsection 16.2(3).
16.2 (3) In addition to the powers referred to in subsection
(1), a protection officer may, with the consent of the
participating state, exercise any powers referred to in section
16.1. The officer is deemed to have received the consent of the
state if the state
I see no time frame in the bill. It is set by regulation.
Therefore, I conclude that the governor in council, cabinet,
will establish the regulatory measures.
Will cabinet follow the spirit and the letter, as described in
the UN Agreement on Fisheries? That is the question.
I would now like to turn to the most serious question I have
about Bill C-27.
1215
I will say it right off. The Bloc Quebecois supports the UN
Fisheries Agreement. It is establishing international law.
Naturally, it will not be perfect. However, when we ratify an
agreement like that we must honour its spirit and its letter,
and so we will have to respect the time frame.
I must refer to Canadian legislation, and this is what the bill
does not say, because this will be done through regulations,
that the governor in council will decide. However, Bill C-27, the
bill to implement the agreement does not amend another bill we
passed earlier—Bill C-29.
It allows protection officers, with the approval of the
Solicitor General and the Minister of Fisheries, to seize and
bring the offending vessel to the nearest port, if this occurs
in Canadian waters.
Such seizure is effective and immediate. The Canadian
legislation makes no reference to five working days. That is
where my concerns lie. The Minister of Fisheries has just
repeated the same thing he told FAO countries at their March 11
meeting, recommending that the United Nations Fisheries
Agreement be ratified and included in its entirety in national
legislation world-wide.
I would not want to put any words in the minister's mouth that
are not true, but I would like to point out that this seems to
be contradictory and could mislead the House.
They are claiming that the intention of Bill C-27 is to take the
UNFA word for word into Canadian law. This would require us to
do away with Bill C-29 and to specify, through regulation, that
the time limits will be in keeping with those in UNFA.
I am not fully informed about Bill C-27 at this time, which is a
serious shortcoming as we are at the stage of recruiting other
countries to sign this agreement so that it will have the force
of international law. I believe that 30 signatories are
required. We do not have that number at present. Canada wants
to give it a good start by being one of the first signatories.
But what signal is Canada is sending to the rest of the world
when it claims to want to recommend signature of the agreement
in its entirety, while in its own legislation it is not
respecting the spirit and the letter of the UNFA?
This, in my opinion, is sufficient grounds for voting against
Bill C-27, but I would again point out—and this is unfortunate—the
Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with the spirit and the letter of
the UNFA.
I will go still further to state that, at report stage—perhaps I
did not emphasize this enough—we tabled about a dozen motions on
top of what came from the other members, and if I remember
correctly, there were some 18 in all. We worked on the motions
in four groups.
The Bloc Quebecois motions in fact attempted to have Bill C-27
incorporate, to the greatest extent possible, the spirit and the
letter of the UN Fisheries Agreement. Through Motion No. 1, I
tried to include in the bill article 5 of UNFA, since Canada was
in agreement with it.
Why did the government refuse to Canadianize the general
management philosophy? These are very important principles. It
is on the strength of these principles that management plans
will be developed and our fishers told how Canada wants to
manage in the future. If they are not given a vision or general
definition, they are still flying blind.
1220
The second motion we presented was designed to ensure that Bill
C-27 was worded in such a way that Canadian courts could
interpret it according to the letter and the spirit of UNFA. I
repeat, if Canada wishes to sign the agreement, the fishery
should be structured accordingly.
Worse yet, when 30 countries have signed it, it will have the
force of international law. This is one more reason to
Canadianize it, to bring it into line with the spirit and the
letter of UNFA. Once again, the government has refused to agree
to our motion on interpretation.
The second group of motions that I moved, seconded my colleague,
the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, was designed to offset the
extraterritorial nature of Bill C-27, according to the spirit and
the letter of UNFA.
What do I mean by that? Some will say that it is a question of
terminology. International law use the expression zones
désignées
while Canadian law uses the expression zones délimitées. Why would
Canada want to have its terminology differ from that used in the
agreement. For some countries that want to sign the agreement,
it is as though Canada were leaving a door open to depart from
the spirit of the agreement.
The reason for using the expression designated areas is that
they have been designated somewhere. It has already been agreed
upon and appears in another treaty.
In the world sub-regional organization, NAFO, everything is
already designated, defined.
As set out in Bill C-27, the fact that Canada can delineate
leaves things open to interpretation. I do not want to put
words into the mouth of the Minister of Fisheries, but I do wish
to indicate my concerns at this stage of the debate. The
purpose of implementing this agreement with Bill C-27 is to
maximize the number of signatory states. If one is trying to
attract people, one must inspire confidence, not create
scepticism.
The third group of motions we brought in at report stage
concerned parliament's verification rights, and once again this
was refused. We were asking that, if there were to be any new
treaties, schedules to treaties, the House might be consulted
within four months. That is not much, four months.
It is, of course, always the government majority that will get
regulations passed. This was a way to get MPs involved in
management of the country's assets.
Since this bill and the fisheries agreement and international
treaties are so important that the government deemed that this
House has a duty to vote on a bill to allow the UN Fisheries
Agreement to be Canadianized, to make it part of our own
Canadian legislation, I feel that, if there are other changes,
Canadian members of parliament ought to have the right to
discuss them. But no, they will have none of it.
In this connection, I would remind members that, in
international law, in Canadian law, the Canadian government, the
governor in council—or cabinet, in other words—may go to the UN on
its own, sign and ratify the UNFA without consulting this House.
This is according to Canadian law. I can go along with that.
However, I find it unfortunate that they are asking for my
agreement to Canadianize certain parts of the UNFA while denying
me the right to discuss amendments in the House, while the
Canadian government can already do this. I do not understand.
Is this a delaying tactic? Are they trying to convince us that
the Canadian government is looking after fisheries, because the
UNFA is something that is easily passed in the House? As I say
and say again, the hitch is that the agreement is not being
respected. The spirit of the UNFA is not being respected, as is
the case with Bill C-27.
How are we going to get out of it? What is going to happen in
all that?
1225
In the light of what I have just said, on the one hand, Canada
is saying “Yes, we will pass Bill C-27” in order to please
countries that may become allies but, on the one hand, it is
retaining its C-29 pistol, which enables it to intervene, board a
ship and bring it back to port when it is found to be in the
wrong. That is contradictory.
What is Canada really trying to do with all that?
I represent fishers in my riding and I have talked with fishers
in other provinces, including Newfoundland.
The people agreed with the spirit of Bill C-29, that is, when
someone is found to be in error, the ship is boarded and brought
to port with reasonable force, naturally, because no one wants
loss of life. But now it seems to me, as the Reform member for
Delta—South Richmond mentioned as well, that something happened
at the UN so that Canada ended up losing the power to legislate
and sanction a vessel found taken in error.
The only agreement Canada got, was along these lines “You can
investigate, ask questions, take the evidence. However, you
must, within five working days, ask the participating government
that owns the boat to take police action, establish sanctions,
and in this time period, the participating country can itself
carry out the sentence or, in the worst case scenario, not”.
If Canada came away with only that, it is perhaps unfortunate,
but, I repeat, the Bloc supports the UN fisheries agreement,
because we have to start somewhere. In order to protect our
resource and enforce all the fine principles set out in the
preamble, I think we must join with other participating
countries and provide a level playing field. A bit like what we
are taught in the Bible, we are to turn the other cheek. This
is sort of what the fisheries agreement is asking us to do.
Why do I say “turn the other cheek”? Because we must trust the
other signatory country will also enforce the law on its vessel
in contravention, and impress on its captain that he is in
violation, deserves to be sanctioned and has to live with all
the problems that causes.
At this point, we must trust the international community, the
diplomatic channels. We must play the game. If Canada agrees to
align Canadian law with the spirit and the letter of the
fisheries agreement, it will be easier to get other countries to
join. Again, once the agreement has come into force
internationally—30 states must sign it—even those countries that
will not have signed it will be forced to comply with it.
Once that is achieved, Canada can work with the signatory
countries to begin to give some teeth to the agreement. Once the
UNFA has force of law at the international level, consideration
could even be given—and I call for this today—to establishing a
special enforcement authority.
We have peacekeepers; perhaps we could have a fleet, under the
authority of a UN admiral, in charge of co-ordinating the forces
of the various coastal states to protect the resource.
In order to achieve what we want in our waters today, what is
provided under Bill C-29, we must be prepared to take a small
step backward. I agree that this is a step backward, but that is
par for the course, as we say.
1230
A final comment on this, if I may. This is where our Canadian
fishers end up getting hurt, and this is why I am taking a long
time to explain today.
The last time I spoke on this bill, I acted what boarding of a
fishing vessel might be like. Take the Estai for example. In
that case, the Canadian fisheries officer boarded the ship it
and brought it into port.
When we see a ship that, in our opinion, is in violation, what
happens then? First, the captain of the Canadian patrol frigate
boards the ship. He conducts an investigation and questions
those on board.
His patrol vessel is clearly identified. The foreign ship's
crew has nothing to fear from him, since all he can do is talk
to them.
So the captain goes on board, and he asks “What is your country
of origin? What was your catch today? May I see your log?”
Then he asks to see the fishing gear and the hold, to measure
the fish and see whether fish that are too small are being
taken, for example. If they caught turbot the size of my hand,
for instance, they are in violation.
Under Bill C-29, what would he do? He would read the captain of
the offending foreign vessel his rights, then open up his
jacket, take out his revolver and hold it at the ready if the
captain does not want to co-operate.
Perhaps things will be done a bit more peaceably with the UNFA.
The Canadian protection officer will have a new weapon, instead
of his revolver. He would have a new tool in his arsenal He
would open up his jacket, but instead of taking out his
revolver, he would take out his cell phone and call the
department of Fisheries of the other country, and say “I am
giving you five days notice. We have just picked up one of your
people who is in violation”. Canadian fishers are going to find
that hard to take, and hard to understand.
I invite them to accept it nonetheless. I am making this
prediction: if Canada boards a foreign ship twice in a row, I
believe that all the other signatory countries are going to
bring pressure to bear, saying “We have no choice. We wanted to
do this the honourable way, but some people are not following
the rules.
We are going to give the fisheries agreement more teeth by
giving officers more powers and letting coastal countries
catching people red handed apply their laws according to the
their own legal code”. That I think is what needs to be done.
The objective is to get people to understand the spirit of the
agreement, which they do not currently. As members can see, it
is a bit contradictory. It is as if Canada in the scenario I
have just painted were trying to give its fishery officers two
tools at the same time. But no provision is made in C-27, which
serves to implement the agreement.
At the moment, the only weapon a fishery officer can carry is a
revolver. Under the new legislation, he will have to use his
phone first. There are no other interpretations.
In this regard, I think that the members of the House will have
to be very sensitive to the issue and vote no. When they come
to vote on Bill C-27, they will have to make the effort to reread
the UN Agreement on Fisheries, especially paragraphs 5 and 6 of
article 21. There is a clear reference to three working days.
Now, when we look at Canadian law, we see it is immediate.
1235
However, if we want, by voting in favour of Bill C-27, to
implement the UN Agreement on Fisheries, we are shooting
ourselves in the foot, because our law provides exactly the
opposite in Bill C-29.
Before I conclude, I mentioned earlier that we had concerns, my
colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry and I, about the words
used, for example délimité and désigné. We prefer the English
choice of designated. We should perhaps use the same words in
applying international law.
Under the UN Fisheries Agreement, a Canadian protection officer
is allowed to board and inspect where “there are clear grounds
for believing”. Bill C-27, which is supposed to implement this
agreement, uses the expression “reasonable grounds”. Why has
the terminology been changed?
Some will say that I am making a mountain out of a molehill
today. I would point out that the purpose of the bill is to
implement an international treaty. All other nations will have
to live with the same vocabulary. If we are trying to get them
to ratify the agreement, why are we changing the vocabulary?
I have already pointed out in my speech that, on three
occasions, we have stepped back from this agreement, a bit like
Saint Peter when Jesus was arrested: “Before the cock crow,
thou shalt deny me thrice”.
The bill has not yet been passed, the international treaty has
not yet been ratified and already, in at least three places in
the bill to implement it, Canada is going against the spirit and
the letter of the agreement. Worse still, it is going back on
its own word. On the one hand, it is telling all nations of the
world to incorporate the UN Fisheries Agreement in their
legislation. On the other, Canada has stepped back from the
bill at least three times.
This is why I will be voting against the bill.
It is too bad. I hope that members will understand from what I
have said that I am in agreement with the UN Fisheries
Agreement, but I cannot allow the House, and in particular the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the government members, to
pass this bill because it is contrary to UNFA.
In conclusion, I would like to raise a few points. Time is
being devoted to a debate of this bill, but I remind the House
that the government could have gone to the UN and signed and
ratified this agreement without our approval. In any event, if
there are other annexes or treaties to sign, it is henceforth
denying us the right to amend them.
I would have liked it if, this spring, the government had not
put us through the problems we experienced in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence last summer. The government likes to find out what is
going on elsewhere. It is fond of international treaties.
Canada belongs to an international subregional organization
called NAFO. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization has a
management regime. Every participating country already knows
what its allocation will be in the Atlantic.
The rules used to determine the total allowable catches and the
mathematical formula that will apply to a particular cod,
halibut or shrimp stock are known in advance. Each participating
country provides the biological information it has. That
information is fed into the computer, the total biomass figure
comes out and, the mathematical formula having been determined
in advance, there nothing anybody can say about it. Every
country at the table knows the percentage allocated to it. I
think it is paradise at sea.
Canada is part of that management regime, but it does not apply
within its own waters the methods used by NAFO.
1240
Why do I mention that? I do not want take away from Canada its
constitutional right to manage fisheries. However, once Quebec
has achieved sovereignty—or maybe that will never happen even
though that is not what I wish—I think it should come to an
agreement with its neighbours, namely New Brunswick, Prince
Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, since all five of
them share the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Why could we not do what NAFO does, which is to allocate a
specific share to each jurisdiction and ensure that the method
used to determine the total allowable catches is transparent so
as to take the politics out of the issuance of fishing licences?
This is what every fisher, everyone whose livelihood depends on
fishing, wishes for.
Under Canadian legislation, the minister has the discretionary
power to decide who gets what. Of course, I do not mean to say
that the minister is an ogre. He is doing what he can with what
he has, but I would like to give him a hand by suggesting that,
in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, we model our management
system on NAFO's.
I would add one last criterion, which could make things easier.
When we talk about fixing quotas, some people might get scared
and say “No, we do not want fixed quotas for Quebec. We do not
want fixed quotas for Newfoundland”. Quota is a scary word. Some
people will say “That is it for us”. But that is not the point
here.
I would like to borrow an approach from French law. In 1992,
French law allowed the European Parliament to set relative
stabilization criteria between participating Mediterranean
states. What does that mean? It means that the fishers or the
participating states know how much fish they can catch. If these
stabilization criteria are not quotas, what are they?
One job at sea creates five jobs on land. The main problem is
that a live fish is federal and a dead fish is provincial. Could
the federal and the provincial governments not find a way for
the provinces to set stabilization criteria that would ensure
that the five jobs on land do not come and go all the time? That
would be a step towards harmonization.
I would remind the House that we must downsize. There is not one
province willing to downsize and lay-off everybody working in the
fisheries without knowing what its relative basis is.
With the consent of the House, I could speak all afternoon, even
all weekend long, on this topic.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: I see people are agreeing to it. If the House
so wishes, I will keep on talking about the United Nations
fisheries agreement. Do I have the consent of the House, Madam
Speaker?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): At this point I wish
to inform the House that there is an error in the English text of
the opposition motion on page 17 of today's order paper.
[Translation]
A corrigendum is available from the table. I am sorry for any
inconvenience this might have caused the hon. members.
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member may have received unanimous consent had he said
“until the cows come home” instead of “until the fish come
back”.
On behalf of the NDP caucus, I am honoured to speak on the bill.
In speaking to the hon. member, the spokesperson for our caucus
on fisheries and known as a great supporter and defender of the
fishing industry and the preservation of the fish stock, we would
like to extend our support, but with some reservations.
1245
As members of the committee are very well aware, amendments were
put forward to address the specific issues. I will highlight
once again the main point of concern that we would like to raise
during debate on Bill C-27.
The bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the
Canada Shipping Act. It is Canada's implementation of the United
Nations fisheries agreement, a very crucial agreement as it deals
with the protection of our fish stocks based on sustainability
and co-operation. Also the jurisdiction over waters and the
supply of fish is enhanced. It ensures that Canadian fish caught
by Canadian fishermen are processed in Canadian plants. That is a
major issue.
I would like to raise a point of contention about a specific and
crucial point in the bill. It is also an issue of
interpretation. The bill is a new tool for enforcing
international conservation measures on the high seas. It will
allow Canada to operate outside Canadian waters under the
auspices of the UNFA, the United Nations Fisheries Agreement.
We certainly are aware that enforcing illegal or unwarranted
activities can escalate to international misunderstandings. In
dealing with foreign nations let us be very specific and very
clear in our communications so as not to jeopardize the
integrity, the powers and the safety of our enforcement officers.
Under Bill C-27 a ship suspected of illegally fishing on the
high seas could be boarded and searched if the flag state is
informed. The protections officer can then exercise additional
powers under the UNFA if the flag state has not responded within
three days or does not investigate the alleged offence.
The three day period is the contention. It is not defined in
the bill itself. Article 21 of the actual United Nations
fisheries agreement says that the time period will be prescribed
by regulation. During report stage debate the government said
that it would implement a three day period in the UNFA through
regulations at a future date.
My colleague brought forward a motion that would change the
three day notification period to 48 hours. Nobody understands
what three days mean. They could mean working days. When our
hon. colleague brought forth an amendment, 48 hours was a
specific time period which nobody could dispute internationally.
It would have permitted Canadian fisheries officers to wait only
48 hours to act instead of three working days.
Unfortunately the amendment was defeated. We would like to
bring it to the government's attention. Before the bill receives
final royal assent we hope this ratification and clarification
could take place.
What do three working days mean? That is our question to the
government. There is no definition in any of the agreements or
the bill of three working days. Does it mean 72 hours? Does it
include weekends and national holidays? If so, if national
holidays are recognized in Canada, are they also recognized in
the vessel's country of origin? What happens if the boat is
boarded on Christmas Eve? When does that three day period
actually begin? Is it after Boxing Day or New Years? It is a
very contentious issue even under Canadian interpretation.
We do not want to waste the time of fisheries officers who are
trying to work out the details on the high seas. We do not want
to wait too long before they are allowed further action against a
vessel that is fishing illegally. That is why the three working
day period should be reduced to two days and defined as 48 hours.
This was a major issue raised in the committee process and
brought forward in an amendment. We want to raise it with the
government today and ask it to take it under advisement.
We also want to draw attention to the environmental status of
our ecosystem. We talked about declining fish stocks in the
Canadian fisheries industry and the impact it has on our coastal
communities and our economy as a whole.
Internationally fish stocks are declining as our population and
demand for fish are increasing. As one hon. colleague mentioned,
the silent tragedy of human deterioration as a result of agents
in our food cycles is also a major concern. Pollutants that
affect the ecosystem go into our food cycle including the fish
throughout the regions.
1250
I challenge the members who spoke to this issue to look at the
Environmental Protection Act. One party spoke about the need to
look at the health deteriorating agents in food cycles. Another
party diminished the pollution related powers we wanted to
protect in terms of fighting polluters, the polluter pays
principle and the precautionary principle. All these principles
were encompassed by CEPA and were debated. Many members declined
strengthening the bill.
I raise the issue of climate change which affects the migratory
patterns of world fish stocks and the depths at which schools of
fish can be found. The major issues are ecosystem and
environmental protection, pollution prevention for our planet and
climate change. Let us take these issues to heart and challenge
members of the House and the provincial legislators to make sure
we have a viable future for our children and a food supply for
the world, especially our nation. Let us protect our Canadian
waters and our Canadian law enforcement officers.
We would hate to see a situation where we were forced to shoot
across somebody's bow to get somebody's attention in terms of the
legalities of the jurisdiction over fish off our shores. Let us
look at the speedy passage of Bill C-27 as weak as it is. We
would like to strengthen it further, and I think there are
processes that will allow for that.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker,
it gives me pleasure to rise today on behalf of our Conservative
caucus to support Bill C-27.
An hon. member: And to congratulate the government.
Mr. Charlie Power: And congratulate the government for
finally doing something which was so obviously right that it
should have been done many years ago. It has taken so long to
bring the bill before us that both governments, the previous one
and the current one, deserve some blame for not doing it earlier.
However, it is a bill we are more than happy to support.
Our fisheries critic has spoken to the bill and to its
amendments on several occasions. Obviously we are very
supportive of any act that adds to our conservation and
management skills to control the fisheries resource as best we
can. In this case we are talking about the straddling stocks
outside and inside the 200 mile limit. We are talking about cod,
flounder, turbot, tuna and swordfish.
We need to protect all these fish for the livelihood of all
those who depend on them. We need to protect the fisheries
resource because it is a tremendous source of protein for the
whole world, a world that is often starving and hungry. If that
resource is managed properly, if we make sure it is a renewable
resource that remains renewable, all the world will be well
served. Hence we are very supportive of the bill.
Unfortunately it has taken way too long to get the bill approved
by the House of Commons. We hope Canada becomes a signatory to
the agreement very quickly. After many years only 59 countries
have become signatories to it. There have only been 17
ratifications and we need 30 before the agreement has any
international effect. We may have missed an opportunity that we
certainly should not have missed.
We on this side of the House congratulate the Liberal government
for doing this, but we were surprised that all the amendments put
forth by the member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, the member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore and myself were
voted down by the majority of government members. Some of the
amendments that were discussed fully in the fisheries committee
could have made the act an awful lot better and an awful lot
stronger. All amendments should not have been voted down.
One amendment I am sure should not have been voted down by
members opposite is my amendment to section 701(1) which would
allow for enforcement. Everybody on this side of the House
interprets the act as being very weak when it comes to the
enforcement side. The principle of the act is good, but it
cannot be enforced by our fisheries protection officers, the RCMP
and coast guard officials designated under the act to do
enforcement. There was a real opportunity to strengthen the act
so that it would add to the conservation and protection of our
fish resources.
1255
My colleague who spoke before me mentioned the amendment I am
talking about. The problem with section 701 is that a foreign
fishing vessel caught in Canadian waters illegally cannot be
charged right away. Permission of the home state has to be
obtained. That might be okay when dealing with the signatories
to the agreement.
Canada or the other signatory countries might say that if one of
our vessels is caught doing something wrong, the enforcement
officers can lay a charge and let the chips fall where they may.
However, what happens when the real culprits in international
overfishing are pirate ships of countries flying flags of
convenience registered in Panama or Belize or someplace else? As
the former speaker just mentioned, what happens if someone is
caught on a Christmas Eve? How would fisheries officers get
permission?
What should a fisheries officer off the coast of Newfoundland do
in a situation similar to the Estai? How could a fishing
captain who is breaking the law by using a liner inside of his
regular trawls to can catch small fish and destroy a resource be
charged? How would the officer get control of the vessel?
If in Newfoundland waters the enforcement officer would call the
federal Minister of Fisheries who would then contact the federal
Minister for International Affairs who would then try to contact
somebody in a place like Panama and get permission to lay a
charge on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador. It will
simply never happen.
My amendment was pretty straightforward. All it said was that
enforcement officers in our fleets would have exactly the same
set of rules and regulations. If they found a Canadian vessel
inside Canadian waters breaking the law, the captain could be
arrested, the ship seized and taken to port, and the legal
process would set in. Why is there a different set of laws in
the bill, one that applies to foreign vessels inside Canadian
limits and one that applies to the vessels of Canada and other
signatories to the agreement inside Canadian waters?
It is a real shortfall in the bill. We proposed an amendment
which was agreed to by this side of the House. I believe all
members on this side supported the amendment and everybody on the
opposite side voted against it. On the one hand the government
deserves credit for finally bringing in the bill. On the other
hand it certainly could have made it a lot better and could have
protected more of the fish stocks off the coast of Newfoundland
and Labrador or indeed any part of Canada.
That being said, we will still support the bill because it is
badly needed. Anything that conserves and protects our fish
resources is obviously something we will support. It is not just
the fish resources. I have heard the minister of fisheries say
sometimes that his first priority is to protect fish, not
fishermen, fisherwomen, or workers, or other people who depend on
the fishery. I take a different approach. The first
responsibility of the minister of fisheries is to the people he
represents. That means he has to conserve and protect fish
stocks. As long as it is done on a scientific basis, we are more
than happy to support him.
In Newfoundland and Labrador a lot of things are happening that
do not preserve and conserve our fish resources. Our fishermen,
fisherwomen, plant workers, truckers, suppliers and other support
industries have a way of life based upon an inshore fishery in
Newfoundland. That inshore fishery is now again at very serious
risk, which I raised in committee yesterday when the Newfoundland
delegation was here. We have done many things to preserve,
conserve and protect our resource, and we are allowing one part
of the ecosystem to completely destroy and diminish all other
efforts we have taken.
In the case of seals we have a very serious problem. As I said
in committee yesterday, sometimes we are destined to repeat
history because maybe our memories are bad. We should not be
destined to repeat events. In the 1980s when the cod stocks were
being seriously depleted there was always the argument that we
did not have enough scientific proof to significantly reduce
quotas. Every fisherman in Newfoundland could say it was getting
harder and harder to make a living, more and more difficult to
find fish, and when fish were found they were smaller than they
had ever been before.
I was in government in Newfoundland from 1979 to 1989. I know
the premier and the other politicians in Newfoundland fought hard
to get the federal government to reduce the quotas and to do
something about management of our fish stocks. Nobody listened
to us or in particular to fishermen.
Now in 1998-99 we have another problem where everybody in
Newfoundland, every politician of every political party, every
fisherman who lives around the coast of Newfoundland, sees the
great predation by seals.
1300
Seals have gone from roughly two million in the mid-1980s to
close to seven million now. They eat millions of tonnes of fish
per year. In Atlantic cod alone, a stock which the government
has tried to preserve, $3 billion in TAGS and income support has
been put in place to try to regenerate roe in Newfoundland. That
$3 billion is going to be lost because we have not been willing,
we have not been brave enough and courageous enough, to take on
the International Fund for Animal Welfare and other lobbyists who
have their axe to grind and use anything they can to raise
significant amounts of money for their organizations.
We read in the news today how the Government of Canada deals
with environmental problems. We are afraid for our lives to
touch the seal issue. No one wants to touch seals. No one wants
to get involved with the seal issue.
In western Canada, on a similar environmental issue, we have a
problem with snow geese. There are not many people who make a
living on snow geese. In Atlantic Canada this year seals ate
210,000 tonnes of Atlantic cod. That would employ almost
everyone who was previously involved in the Atlantic fishery;
210,000 tonnes of cod and one million tonnes of caplin. If
protected, that resource could create a significant amount of
jobs in Atlantic Canada.
However, it cannot be dealt with. The government says that it
cannot justify an increase in the seal quota, the total allowable
catch, because it does not have scientific data. In effect, it
is a repetition of what happened with the cod stocks in 1980.
We are afraid to listen to fishermen. We are afraid to listen
to people who can see evidence on the shoreline on any given day
of seal predation. Now we are in the situation where the
Government of Canada says that we cannot cull the herd. We
cannot do anything.
However, the Canadian program aims to cull snow geese by 1.25
million this year, 1.9 million in 2000 and 2.6 million in 2001.
We are almost doubling our cull of snow geese because of an
environmental disaster. We are doing it, in a way, to protect
the snow geese. If we do not, they will simply eat themselves
out of house and home and nature will find a way to bring the
numbers down.
I am saying to the minister that when it comes to conservation,
protection and enhancement of our fish stocks, we should do what
Environment Canada has authorized be done for snow geese. Many
more people make a living in Newfoundland based upon the fish
resources that we have.
That being said, I believe that some of our amendments,
especially on enforcement, should have been approved, but Liberal
members chose not to accept them. However, members on this side
of the House and we in the Conservative caucus will support Bill
C-27. If nothing else, it is an improvement to what we now have.
On behalf of our caucus I give our support to this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I listened to the Progressive Conservative member's
comments. I take it from his conclusion that he would recommend
that his party vote in favour of Bill C-27.
As I mentioned in my speech, I believe the bill is contrary to
the spirit of the United Nations fishing agreement.
The first question I would like to put to the hon. member is the
following. Is he more comfortable with the existing Canadian law
system, as set in Bill C-29, which makes it possible to seize
vessels caught in the act and slap penalties on them?
If this is the case, it means he does not agree with the content
of the United Nations Fisheries Agreement. The agreement says
that a country should act in a diplomatic way and give three
days to fishing boats caught in violation.
This is the reason why I emphasised, in my speech, the need of
diplomacy. We need to get as many countries as possible on side,
to get 30 signatories, which is the minimum number required for
the agreement to become binding internationally.
Once we reach that level internationally, signatory countries
can find a way to give teeth to the agreement. For now, we
cannot choose between them.
1305
I want to be sure that the hon. member has understood, and I
would like him to comment on NAFO's management policy, which
already establishes percentages applicable to participating
countries. This could allow a settlement of some disputes
between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Quebec.
I also remind the House that NAFO's rules for establishing total
allowable catches are transparent and known to all. Everyone
provides information, while at present in the Canadian system
officials and biologists at Fisheries and Oceans are the only
ones who have the information and communicate it to the
minister. We are forced to live with the decisions.
I would like to ask the hon. member two questions.
Does he prefer to live only under Canadian legislation, Bill
C-29? This would be the result if we vote for Bill C-27. And what
does he think of allowing Canada to administer things the way
NAFO does?
[English]
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker, I
have two questions for the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.
We also are not in perfect unity with the government on this
bill. All of the amendments made by the member, which were done
with a lot of concurrence on the fisheries committee, were
excellent amendments which could have made the bill stronger.
However, we have come to the conclusion in the Conservative
caucus that it is better to support this bill and have it
ratified so that it becomes more of an international agreement
with the other countries which are signatories to it, to at least
go that far. I suspect what will happen is that we will be back
here in a couple of years, which often happens with this
government, making amendments to Bill C-27 when the government
finds that the enforcement mechanisms will not work.
Government members will come to the House one day with a great
show of pride and patriotism to bring amendments, the amendments
which the member suggested and the amendments which I suggested,
and will be back here to make this bill stronger and make it do
what we want it to do.
We in Newfoundland have always been very concerned and alarmed
that when it comes to NAFO Canada is much too soft. We accept
too many violations with respect to some of the things that
happen on those vessels. This is just not strong enough to do
what we want to do in Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed in
all of Atlantic Canada.
Yes, we would like a much stronger bill, but we have decided to
support this bill because at least it goes in the right
direction.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member mentioned in his speech the total allowable catch for
the seal herd this year. Over 200,000 animals are to be culled
from that herd, out of a total population on the east coast of
about 6.4 million seals.
I would like the hon. member to comment on two things. First,
the government and the minister involved have certainly ignored
the lives and well-being of Atlantic Canadians. There is no
question about that. However, there is also a greater travesty.
The government has also ignored the conservation measures needed
to ensure a healthy seal herd.
If we have a burgeoning seal population which has already
surpassed—
Mr. Wayne Easter: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The comments of the hon. member are not relevant to the
bill we are dealing with.
Mr. Charlie Power: Madam Speaker, obviously the reason we
are supporting the bill on this side of the House is because it
conserves and protects our fish stocks. The nature and level of
those fish stocks are obviously very pertinent to this debate and
therefore the member's question is certainly in order.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
South Shore may continue with his question and comment.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I was encompassing the seals in the total
fish stocks. I realize the difference between mammals and fish.
I am not sure thatmembers opposite do.
However, I want to look at the holistic picture. The question
for the hon. member is put quite simply. We are not only
ignoring the personal value, the very real value, and the
hardship it causes Nova Scotians, Labradorians, New Brunswickers,
Quebecers, Magdalen Islanders and Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, we are also ignoring the very real responsibility
that we have for conservation of the seal herd.
The seal herd will continue to overpopulate, to overreach the
food resource and will suffer some type of a crippling and
dramatic decline in population, probably long term starvation and
disease. What are the hon. member's thoughts on that?
1310
Mr. Charlie Power: Madam Speaker, there is no longer a
balance in our ecosystem. Strangely enough, long before we
joined Canada, long before Canada became Canada, there were seal
and cod fish all along the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Recorded history tells us that they were there as long ago as 500
years, but I suspect they were there tens of thousands of years
before that.
We finally got the two hundred mile limit in 1997 and Canadian
control and management. We have Ph.D.s in biology and in
ecosystem science. We have all kinds of educated scientists. We
have all kinds of people with masters degrees in business to
manage the resource. We have all kinds of guardians and wildlife
people to look after it. Why, after barely 25 or 30 years, do we
have a system that is so totally mismanaged and out of control?
The problem now is that because it is so mismanaged and because
we have so many seals and so few fish, we are going to lose. We
have seen seven years of devastation in Atlantic Canada,
particularly in Newfoundland. There has been an out-migration of
30,000 people in the last three years alone from a lot of towns
like Trepassey. It used to have close to 2,000 people and it now
has close to 800 people. We are losing our young people. We are
losing our brains. A lot of it is because our fishery resources
have been totally mismanaged.
Now we have another problem facing the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans and the Government of Canada square in the face every day.
We have six million or seven million seals. They are eating well
over one million tonnes of food per year. As a result, the cod
stocks are not coming back. The $3 billion invested by the
Government of Canada to allow the resource to come back is going
to be wasted.
All we are saying is that there has to be a balance. The
Government of Canada now has enough scientific data and certainly
enough evidence from all of our fishers and people living on our
coast that it is really time to do something with the seal herd.
Unless it is done, as the member says, the seals will eat
themselves out of house and home. There will be a mass
depopulation of seals by natural reasons. Everybody will be
poorly served with respect to cod fish and seals, especially the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate this debate. I
know I have about a minute, so I will not get into a long
dissertation.
It is an interesting debate and it is a subject that is very
close to the hearts of all Atlantic Canadians and Quebecers who
are involved in the very difficult business of the management of
fish stocks.
I do not really think this is a political issue and I do not
think there is much disagreement. I have to remind my hon.
friend and colleague from St. John's West that management of fish
stocks is not an easy issue. He will recall that a few years
ago, on the nose and tail of the bank, while many members of the
Conservative government at that time actually agreed that we
needed to take some action, the political will was not there to
do so. In fact, the minister of the day, Mr. John Crosbie, said
as much on television when this government did take action.
That aside, my comment is that the management of fish stocks is
a very difficult issue. In the case of seals, I understand what
the hon. member is saying and I think eventually we are going to
have to do something to address this issue. What that something
is going to be he knows is a very complex issue.
Mr. Charlie Power: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister
for his comments. I know he has been very active in trying to
manage the very complicated resources in our oceans.
However, we have to be careful in this case that the seal issue
does not become political. When the present Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans said to the provincial ministers of
fisheries in Quebec City the other day that the reason he cannot
increase the seal cull or seal quota this year is because of
international trade ramifications, we then begin as politicians
to manage the resource based on public relations and politics.
That is what happened.
I agreed fully in the 1980s with the other governments and the
other ministers. If we go back to that with seals we are going
to repeat the problem. We may repeat history, but we should not
repeat current events.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
please to take part in this debate today. I would like to deal
with the details of the UN agreement.
1315
First of all, I would like to quote part of the preamble:
Recognizing the need for specific assistance, including
financial, scientific and technological assistance, in order
that developing States can participate effectively in the
conservation, management and sustainable use of straddling fish
stocks and highly migratory fish stocks,
Convinced that an agreement for the implementation of the
relevant provisions of the Convention would best serve these
purposes and contribute to the maintenance of international
peace and security,
Affirming that matters not regulated by the Convention or
by this Agreement continue to be governed by the rules and
principles of general international law,
Have agreed as follows:
I would also like read the general provisions of article 1,
which deals with use of terms and scope.
It is very important that we know the details of the UN agreement.
(b) The expression “conservation and management measures”, means
measures to conserve and manage one or more species of living
marine resources that are adopted and applied consistent with
the relevant rules of international law as reflected in the
Convention and this Agreement.
(c) The term “fish” includes molluscs and crustaceans except
those belonging to sedentary species as defined in article 77 of
the Convention.
(d) The term “arrangement” means a co-operative mechanism
established in accordance with the Convention and this Agreement
by two or more States for the purpose, inter alia, of
establishing conservation and management measures in a subregion
or region for one or more straddling fish stocks or highly
migratory fish stocks.
2. (a) The term “States Parties” means States which have
consented to be bound by this Agreement and for which the
Agreement is in force.
(i) any entity referred to in article 305, paragraph 1 (c), (d)
and (e), of the Convention and
(ii) subject to article 47, to any entity referred to as an
“international organization” in Annex IX, article 1, of the
Convention which becomes a Party to this Agreement. To that
extent “States Parties” refers to those entities.
3. This Agreement applies mutatis mutandis to other fishing
entities whose vessels fish on the high seas.
Article 2 reads, and I quote:
1. The objective of this Agreement is to ensure the long-term
conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and
highly migratory fish stocks through effective implementation of
the relevant provisions of the Convention.
Article 3 deals with the application and reads:
1. Unless otherwise provided, this Agreement applies to the
conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks beyond areas under national jurisdiction,
except that articles 6 and 7 apply also to the conservation and
management of such stocks within areas under national
jurisdiction, subject to the different legal regimes that apply
within areas under national jurisdiction and in areas beyond
national jurisdiction as provided for in the Convention.
2. In the exercise of its sovereign rights for the purpose of
exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing straddling
fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks within areas under
national jurisdiction, the coastal State shall apply mutatis
mutandis the general principles enumerated in article 5.
3. States shall give due consideration to the respective
capacities of developing States to apply articles 5, 6 and 7
within areas under national jurisdiction and their need for
assistance as provided for in this Agreement. To this end, Part
VII applies mutatis mutandis in respect of areas under national
jurisdiction.
1320
And I continue:
Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the rights,
jurisdiction and duties of States under the Convention. This
Agreement shall be interpreted and applied in the context of and
in a manner consistent with the Convention.
Now, moving on to the second part:
Part II. Conservation and management of straddling fish stocks
and highly migratory fish stocks.
Article 5. General principles
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
co-operate in accordance with the Convention:
(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—
The agreement is intended to assess the impacts of fishing,
other human activities and environmental factors on target
stocks and species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated
with or dependent upon the target stocks.
Article 5 (e) reads as follows:
(e) Adopt, where necessary, conservation and management measures
for species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with
or dependent upon the target stocks, with a view to maintaining
or restoring populations of such species above levels at which
their reproduction may become seriously threatened;
Article 5 (f) concerns pollution and reads as follows:
(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;
Articles 5 (g) to (l) read as follows:
(g) protect biodiversity in the marine environment;
(h) take measures to prevent or eliminate overfishing 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.
Next comes application of the precautionary approach.
1. States shall apply the precautionary approach widely to
conservation, management and exploitation of straddling fish
stocks and highly migratory fish stocks in order to protect the
living marine resources and preserve the marine environment.
2. States shall be more cautious when information is uncertain,
unreliable or inadequate. The absence of adequate scientific
information shall not be used as a reason for postponing or
failing to take conservation and management measures.
1325
The agreement also states, at article 6, paragraph 3, which
deals with implementing the precautionary approach:
3. In implementing the precautionary approach, States shall:
(a) improve decision-making for fishery resource conservation and
management by obtaining and sharing the best scientific
information available and implementing improved techniques for
dealing with risk and uncertainty;
(b) apply the guidelines set out in Annex II and determine, on
the basis of the best scientific information available,
stock-specific reference points and the action to be taken if
they are exceeded, of course;
(c) take into account, inter alia, uncertainties relating to the
size and productivity of the stocks, reference points, stock
condition in relation to such reference points, levels and
distribution of fishing mortality and the impact of fishing
activities on non-target and associated or dependent species, as
well as existing and predicted oceanic, environmental and
socio-economic conditions; and
(d) develop data collection and research programmes to assess
the impact of fishing on non-target and associated or dependent
species and their environment, and adopt plans which are
necessary to ensure the conservation of such species and to
protect habitats of special concern.
4. States shall take measures to ensure that, when reference
points are approached, they will not be exceeded. In the event
that they are exceeded, States shall, without delay, take the
action determined under paragraph 3 (b) to restore the stocks.
5. Where the status of target stocks or non-target or associated
or dependent species is of concern, States shall subject such
stocks and species to enhanced monitoring in order to review
their status and the efficacy of conservation and management
measures. They shall revise those measures regularly in the
light of new information.
6. For new or exploratory fisheries, States shall adopt as soon
as possible cautious conservation and management measures,
including, inter alia, catch limits and effort limits. Such
measures shall remain in force until there are sufficient data
to allow assessment of the impact of the fisheries on the
long-term sustainability of the stocks;
Therefore, if a natural phenomenon has significant detrimental
effects on the status of straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks, states must adopt, as soon as possible,
conservation and management measures so that fishing activities
do not make these detrimental effects even worse.
That is what I had to say on this subject.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to the order made
earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the third
reading stage of Bill C-27 are deemed to have been put and the
recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday,
April 20, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders.
[English]
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-440, an act to amend the Criminal Code (flight), be read a
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: I am very happy to be here today to speak to Bill C-440.
[English]
This bill would not have been here today had it not been for the
co-operative efforts of my co-sponsor, the member for
Leeds—Grenville, who will be speaking to this bill.
1330
It is an honour for a member of parliament to be given the
opportunity not only to speak on his or her bill, but to also
know that a subcommittee of our peers has deemed it worthy by the
fact that it is votable. It is for that reason that I am here
today with those of us who have supported the bill. I am hopeful
that it will be moving ahead in the near future.
I cannot emphasize enough how I believe an issue like this
really transcends the usual partisan barriers that might
sometimes inhibit bills.
I have many people to thank for getting the bill here in terms
of being able to tell people what it is all about. I have been
most impressed with the help of the Minister of Justice, who has
been extremely sensitive to this issue, and for the support that
the parliamentary secretary and members on this side have given
to this initiative.
Having a couple of votable bills before the House of Commons,
but particularly this one, says a lot about the necessity for
filling a gap which I believe exists and that I think most
reasonable people in Canada believe exists in the Criminal Code.
I would have preferred to have entitled this bill, Evading
Police, for that is the issue: a wanton, reckless and at times
tragic act by an individual using a motor vehicle to escape the
police. Sadly, the act often leads to the death or injury of
either the individual committing it, the police officers who are
trying to fulfill their duty to protect the public, or some
innocent bystander who just happens to be in the wrong place at
the wrong time.
I introduced this bill sometime back in October on the heels of
several incidents that took place in my community, the greater
Toronto area, whereby the police, in simply doing their jobs,
were often confronted with situations whereby the wanton acts of
those who would flee placed the safety of the public at greater
risk, often winding up with injury or death.
Since the bill has been introduced, there have been a number of
tragedies that have hit closer to home for me. About four weeks
ago, a very well-known leader in my community of Pickering,
Father Ilce Miovski, was killed as he was attending to his
vehicle. It happened as a result of someone taking the liberty
of exceeding speeds that would not otherwise be normal. The
driver went out of control and hit Father Miovski's car, killing
a man who was not just a leader in terms of the community, but a
leader in the Macedonian community.
I speak for all of parliament, as I have before on this very
subject, in sending out our heartfelt sorrow to that community
which lost its leader during the Lenten period of the Macedonian
community.
I also want to speak to another personal situation that occurred
in Brampton with the death of Sarah Bowman, again due to a
reckless act of somebody trying to evade a peace officer. Sarah
was only 21 years of age. I know her family is probably
listening and looking on today.
I hope that what we have to say here today is not lost on the
necessity to fill the void that, if nothing else, serves as a
lesson or a message to those who, for a simple reason such as
perhaps a suspended licence, would wilfully flee from a police
officer and endanger the public.
The House could send that kind of message over time with the
help and the expertise that is available to us both in committee,
which I hope the bill will eventually reach, and the input from
thousands of Canadians who have something to say about this, in
an effort to ensure that many Canadians down the road are not
victims of our neglect.
I introduced Bill C-440 as a private members' bill on October 7,
1998. Simply put, the bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code by
creating a specific offence with severe penalties for anyone who,
while using a motor vehicle, fails to stop for the police.
At first view the bill seems to be the product of common sense.
To some it may even appear odd; that the Criminal Code should
already had a provision that specifically prohibits this act.
The truth is it does not. Currently, section 249 of the Criminal
Code, the dangerous operation of motor vehicle provisions, are
used to combat the act of evading police.
1335
When Constable Richard Sonnenberg of the Calgary police lay down
a spike belt to stop a speeding car that would not pull over, was
that due to some person overreacting? Was it due to panic or
from the driver being scared? Was it a case of dangerous driving
or was there really more to it?
Most people would think that a person driving at speeds of 160
or 170 kilometres per hour goes beyond dangerous driving. It was
clear the individual did not want to stop for the police and was
prepared to do quite a bit to get away from them. Surely that
very act of avoiding the police should be a specific criminal
offence with a specific penalty.
Most engineers would view the act for what it was, a large
projectile hurtling at excessive speeds and the excess weight of
some 3,000 pounds moving down a highway. Most normal people
would view this projectile as being driven by an individual who
has no regard whatsoever for human life.
The debate, however, is of little consequence to Constable
Sonnenberg. He was killed when that car struck him while trying
to avoid the spike belt. The consequence of this was that the
driver of the car was charged with criminal negligence causing
death and received a sentence of six years in jail. Simply six
years. Was justice served? Did that individual pay for his
actions and for the taking of another person's life? I really do
not think so.
In the current Criminal Code the penalties for dangerous driving
are as follows: the act itself is punishable by either
imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or summary
conviction; if the act causes injury, the penalty is imprisonment
for a term not exceeding 10 years; and if the act causes death,
the penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
Under Bill C-440, anyone who operates a motor vehicle to evade a
police officer is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Anyone who
commits this offence and in the process injures another person is
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. Anyone
causing the death of another person in committing this act will
be liable to imprisonment for life.
I believe these penalties are sufficient and I believe it is
time the Criminal Code had a specific provision dealing with
using a motor vehicle to evade police. I am not alone in that
belief.
As many in the House know, last week in my province, the
province of Ontario, the solicitor general issued the much
awaited guidelines dealing with regulations on police conduct in
matters of criminal evasion; better known in the public as simple
evasion of police or police chases. I think that is a bit of a
stretch. Yes, it is a chase, but I do not think we can actually
say the police are chasing people because they find it is
particularly interesting or because it is something they do in
their spare time. They are doing it because they are upholding
the law.
While these regulations are important—and I give some credit to
the solicitor general for them—without a response at the federal
level with respect to the Criminal Code, we are in effect
regulating the police while letting those who evade police off
scot-free.
On November 16, 1998 I wrote to the minister, and the minister
is extremely interested in the issue. I know that for those of
us who have spent a lot of time on this issue there will be some
point down the road when we will be dealing with it more
specifically and more appropriately before the committee. I look
forward to that.
I am very pleased to have received the support of several
associations, obviously the Canadian Police Association, victims'
rights groups and of course the CAA.
I am interested in what has occurred with respect to recent
editorials in various papers across the country. We see that
some are shifting or swinging to the left while others are a
little bit to the right. However, it seems there is a consensus
evolving in all corners of the media and all regions of the
country that we cannot continue to inhibit our peace officers,
our thin blue line, from being able to do their job.
Police officers know full well who the people are who should be
apprehended, who are breaking the law, who are fleeing the public
and who are engaging in reckless and wanton acts, but impunity is
the current state of the laws.
When I appeared before the subcommittee on Private Members'
Business, I read some letters that were very cogent to this
issue.
The letters were from Syd Bowman, Jenny Bowman and Karen
Kalverda, the sister of Sarah Bowman.
1340
We have an opportunity with this bill to right a wrong. If it
means the saving of one single life, or the deterrent that might
avoid someone receiving an injury that could maim them for life,
then we have indeed done well and discharged our duty here in the
House of Commons.
I am honoured to have had the opportunity to bring this bill
forward, but this is not the Dan McTeague bill, it is the House
of Commons bill. This is a bill that belongs to all members of
the House. If anybody has any idea how I could move this bill
forward more quickly, I am certainly game.
I believe the bill rightly corresponds to a need in the public
today. It is a void that exists within our midst and within our
judicial system. I do not believe there is a lack of will to
respond to this. The responses we are seeing at the federal and
provincial levels among concerned groups are putting us in a
situation where I think we are going to see a very quick response
to the issue. Hopefully we will have the necessary legislation
to really send a message out: “For God's sake, if you are going
to try to flee a police officer simply because you are worried,
think about the consequences. If you are not going to think
about the consequences to society in general, think then about
the selfish consequences to yourself”.
I am not in a position right now to speak freely about those I
know who have been injured. I know there is a time for
compassion, but there is also a time to ensure that legislation
we provide to the House, and which hopefully will wind up in the
other place, will stand the test of time and will not be struck
down. While the bill is a very strong starting point, my
expectation is to encourage the House to try to develop a bill
that will meet the standard and tests of not just deterrence, but
also protecting a single life.
There is another aspect to the bill that I think members may not
have considered. At first glance some people may say this is
simply retribution. Throw them in jail and let us not worry
about why they did it. However, there is another aspect that may
be lost but which should be considered by all hon. members in the
House as we deliberate on this important bill that affects us in
each of our ridings.
Perhaps in the act of the chase, in the act of evasion, it is
possible that the peace officer may ascertain the identity of
those who would flee and therefore commit, under this act, an
offence punishable by certain indictable terms in prison. One of
the things that could come out of that is simply the
identification of the person who is fleeing and, if necessary,
not only have to worry about stopping the vehicle, but if it is
not a very serious offence, wait until the person has run out of
gas or until the person is somewhere else and then apprehend
them. In effect, this would give the police a tool of not
necessarily having to engage in a risky chase that might
otherwise endanger other lives.
Goodness knows, there is not a single peace officer in the
country who wishes to endanger another life in order to uphold
the law. However, split second decisions have to be made by
these fine people who are doing their jobs day in and day out and
who basically ensure that we have peace, order and good
governance and who safeguard our laws.
This is really my first foray in the House to explain the bill.
In the very short time since it was introduced, the deliberation
of the subcommittee and the interest shown by parliament is
something for which I am deeply honoured.
A huge consensus is developing in the House. This is not a
perfect bill but it is a good bill and I believe it will fit the
task with perhaps some modification and some change.
I ask and urge the House to move as expeditiously and quickly as
possible to ensure that we do not have another Father Ilce
Miovski, another death in the community; that we do not have
another fatality like the young lady, Sarah Bowman; and that we
do not continue the carnage and place our police officers in the
unenviable position of being damned if they do and damned if they
do not.
1345
I sincerely hope that with the elocution and speeches of my many
colleagues here today and down the road, we consider Bill C-440 a
new and necessary piece of legislation that will restore what is
fundamentally absent in our Criminal Code.
Again I want to thank the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville
without whom this bill could not have been possible. I hope we
will hear from him a little later on.
I have said what I had to say. I wait patiently and attentively
to hear what my hon. colleagues have to say about it as well.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for putting this bill forward. This
individual has repeatedly put forth private members' bills and
motions to this House that are constructive, which have advanced
the debate and are for the benefit of the public at large. I
take my hat off to him for once again putting forth a welcome
bill. It deals with a very serious situation which he
articulated so well in his speech.
Death is never welcome, but never more so when it happens in a
senseless form and takes away an innocent person. My colleague
mentioned it has been a massive problem in his province in
particular, but also in the rest of the country. Many people
have been killed or maimed when somebody fleeing from the police
has caused a crash.
To put the cold hard statistics on the table, between 1991 and
1997, there were 39 people killed, six of whom were innocent
people, and 198 people were injured. I can say as an emergency
room physician that people get injured very badly in high speed
accidents. Many of those people to this day still suffer. They
are scarred by the trauma that has been inflicted upon them
because of the high speed chases.
Let us put some names to the statistics. In February 1999,
Sarah Bowman, 20, of Brampton was hit by a man fleeing from
police on Queen Street and died of massive internal injuries. On
November 15, 1998 Mr. John Gibbons, 47, of Oshawa, a father of
four, died after his car was broadsided by a pick-up truck being
chased by the police. On June 18, 1993, Patricia Cavanaugh, 23,
of Markham died when a stolen mini-van being chased ran a light
and crashed into her car. It would take me all day to go through
this list, but I am not going to. The point has been made.
This situation needs to be rectified. The current penalties for
committing such an offence are inadequate. I have worked in jail
both as a correctional officer and as a physician. I can say
that many of the people who commit traffic offences such as
fleeing from police and drunk driving scoff at what they have
done. There are people with offence lists as long as their arms
for repeatedly committing offences for drunk driving and other
traffic offences such as fleeing from police. They laugh because
the penalties are not there.
Some may criticize this bill for dealing with punitive actions.
Some may argue that punitive actions do not work, but I can say
that if the penalty fit the crime, those people would not be
wilfully and negligently jeopardizing the lives of innocent
people.
There currently are penalties in the Criminal Code. A person
who is sentenced to dangerous driving and is convicted is
punishable by either imprisonment for a period not exceeding five
years or a summary conviction. Summary convictions are nothing.
If a person causes injury, the penalty for imprisonment is for a
term not exceeding 10 years. If the act causes death, the
penalty for imprisonment is a term not exceeding 14 years.
Certainly those are significant penalties. What the public may
not understand is that when people are sentenced, they do not
serve the actual time.
1350
There is no truth in sentencing. In point of fact someone who is
sentenced for committing an act, outside of first degree murder,
serves only one-sixth of the sentence before they are eligible
for parole. What kind of penalty is it for somebody to be
sentenced to six years for killing someone and serves only one
year for that offence? What kind of message does that send? If
somebody takes a life, they need to pay with a commensurate
penalty. And they need to pay that price in our jails.
Bill C-440 provides for good penalties. If someone is not
injured, the maximum penalty is extended to two years but if
someone is hurt, it is a maximum of 10 years. These are
conservative and should run consecutively, not concurrently.
A concurrent sentence is one which runs in conjunction with
another. The person receives no extra penalty. Absolutely none.
Nothing. There is no penalty. Criminals know that. Furthermore
criminals also recognize that in the commission of multiple
offences the penalties are plea bargained away. What kind of
message is that?
We do not want to lock everybody up but there are certain
offences that show a wilful negligence for the health and welfare
of the Canadian public. The minister needs to put herself in the
shoes of those family members who are bereaved by the loss of a
loved one. The minister has to look at this from both sides.
That is all we ask.
Support comes from many quarters, from the public, from the
solicitor general of Ontario and from the police. The police are
asking for help. It is not their fault. The police are doing
their duty yet in the commission of their duty their hands are
often tied. The justice system is not supporting the police in
this country today. It is causing an erosion of the morale of
our police officers whom we rely upon and trust to keep us safe.
We have to give them the same consideration they give us.
The penalties in Bill C-440 are needed. We would like increased
penalties for drunk driving. We also want truth in sentencing.
If a person is sentenced to two years, they should serve two
years. If a person is sentenced to 10 years they should serve 10
years. If sentenced to life, the person should not get out after
15 years but after 25 years. This is why our party has been
fighting for the removal of the so-called faint hope clause,
section 745.
We want to make sure that the police have our support. This
includes financial support. We have been seeing for a very long
time that the RCMP and police forces are not getting the support
to do their job.
The RCMP training facility has been closed. How can we close
down the training facility for the RCMP? It is ridiculous. How
can we have police officers trying to do their jobs if they are
not given the hours to prosecute the people they are arresting?
People are being arrested but then they are released. They cannot
be prosecuted because the police forces do not have the manpower,
the time nor the resources to do so.
Governments have repeatedly made our legal system so
complicated. The conviction process and the process of doing
police work are convoluted, complex and inefficient. It takes a
police officer many hours to do a job that would have taken much
less time years ago. It presently takes two to three times the
time to formulate and process a conviction. It is estimated that
it takes six hours of office work for a police officer to process
a simple drunk driving conviction.
How can police officers do their work with the complexity the
government and other governments have engineered? If the Minister
of Justice wants to do something along with supporting Bill C-440
she needs to work with her provincial counterparts to simplify
the system now.
Again, I compliment my colleague, the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for taking a leadership role with this
bill.
It is a bill for personal safety. It is a bill for the public
good. It is a bill that hopefully will end the carnage on our
streets.
1355
If it is acceptable, I seek unanimous consent to pass Bill C-440
at this point in time.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I begin
by complimenting the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for
introducing this piece of legislation. We too think it will go
some distance toward reducing the carnage and tragic accidents on
our highways.
I know it was an act of omission rather than commission by the
hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I too want to remember
a very significant, well regarded and well liked high school
principal in Rosetown, Saskatchewan, who was killed. He and his
wife were killed in Saskatoon just a few months ago as a result
of a high speed police chase. Let us call it for what it was.
The people of that relatively small prairie community were
devastated at the loss.
[Translation]
Under this enactment, every one commits an offence and is liable
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years who operates
a motor vehicle while being pursued by a peace officer in order
to evade the peace officer and fails to stop the vehicle as soon
as is reasonable in the circumstances.
Every one commits an offence referred to above and thereby
causes bodily harm to a person or the death of a person commits
an offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding ten years or life, respectively.
[English]
Section 249 of the Criminal Code deals with the dangerous
operation of motor vehicles and aircraft. Under the code anyone
who does use a vehicle, vessel or aircraft in a dangerous manner
can be guilty of an indictable offence or summary offence.
The private member's bill that has been introduced by the member
would add an offence of flight from a police officer when
operating a motor vehicle, to be charged and to serve up to two
years imprisonment. Anyone who causes bodily harm while in
flight from police, could serve up to 10 years. Anyone who
causes death while in flight from police could face life
imprisonment.
Bill C-440 also provides for the prohibition of operation of a
motor vehicle and for a manslaughter charge, if it applied, in
the cause of death.
The background to the bill, as has been noted by the two
previous speakers, is the recent police chases that have resulted
in injury and death. By its nature, fleeing from the police in
this manner is presently dangerous use of a vehicle and Bill
C-440 singles out that activity for an actual charge.
The justice critic for the New Democratic Party, the hon. member
for Sydney—Victoria, has met with the national police
association. We know from those conversations that they are very
committed to Bill C-440.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus, we are very
supportive of this legislation. We extend our congratulations to
the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for bringing this
bill forward in the way that he has, working with other members
of the House, including the justice minister.
1400
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the important subject
of Bill C-440, an act to amend the Criminal Code to strengthen
the laws involving criminal flight from police pursuit.
Our party has always supported crime prevention and police
forces across the country. We have continually demanded that the
government correct the problem of the underfunding that has tied
the hands of our overworked police forces as they try to deal
with the growing problem of crime in Canada. Through funding
cuts to the RCMP, quotas for prisoner release and a weak youth
criminal justice act, the Liberals have consistently shown they
are soft on crime.
That is why I am especially pleased to see that one of their own
backbenchers has actually come up with a piece of legislation
that will address certain aspects of real crime. Like the
members who spoke before me, I would like to personally thank the
hon. member opposite for proposing this legislation and
supporting it in a non-partisan effort in the hope that we can
actually accomplish something in parliament and see this
legislation enacted.
The tragic events in the Toronto area last month are but a sad
reminder that the current laws against flight have not been
strong enough to deter a criminal from fleeing a pursuing police
officer. With the death of Father Ilce Miovski aged 50 on March
21 and the death of Valeri Kovaliv aged 41 on March 27, it is
evident that the status quo will no longer suffice. The death of
Mr. Kovaliv gave him the most unfortunate title of being the
fifth innocent civilian in the Toronto area this year to be
killed following a police chase.
We need to enact tough legislation that would deter flight from
the police by making an example of these criminals who place
innocent lives at risk. Whether it be the lives of the police
officers who are probably driving outdated, unsafe police
cruisers due to Liberal cutbacks in policing; whether it be the
lives of innocent bystanders who could be struck and killed in
the midst of a car chase; or whether it be the lives of fleeing
criminals, the fact is that our party holds all life sacred.
In respect of human life we need to give the justice system the
powers needed to properly deal with those who try to escape from
justice. In doing so we will be able to send the message to
criminals that this kind of reckless behaviour will no longer be
tolerated. It is our opinion that Bill C-440 will accomplish
this goal. Under the provisions of the bill suspects who flee
police without causing injury will receive a two year sentence.
Injuring someone while fleeing could result in up to 10 years in
jail. Killing someone during a police chase could mean life
imprisonment. The possibility of taking a life and facing life
imprisonment due to their flight from a lesser crime will now
have to be weighed heavily against the noble route of facing the
music.
The more minor aspects of the bill would involve those who cause
police chases now being charged with crimes including highway
traffic offences which vary by province, dangerous driving or
criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death.
There are many who rightfully have questions as to the
effectiveness of police chases. There are those who feel police
chases only contribute to unnecessary accidents which can lead to
injury and death of the innocent general population. These
people feel that other means such as road blocks, spike belts or
helicopter surveillance equipment would be a more effective
method of tracking and eventually apprehending the criminal
party. However, we are speaking of police forces that already
work with limited resources. Therefore I am not sure these
expensive proposals would be at all feasible at this time.
There are experts in the field of law enforcement who say that
prohibiting the police from chasing criminals in automobiles will
actually create more peril with regard to public safety. Police
unions and several prominent police officers have vocally
defended their right to chase fleeing offenders.
In Ontario police will face charges if they break the new high
speed chase laws. These laws include among other things a mini
test the officers will be asked to perform in their heads to
decide whether or not the chase is worth the risk. They will be
asked to consider the neighbourhood and then the likelihood of an
innocent civilian being injured. They will be told to strongly
consider those options such as the aforementioned use of spike
belts to stop fleeing motorists.
Following similar rules led to the tragic death of a police
officer. On October 8, 1993, Calgary police constable Richard
Sonnenberg was told to lay down a spike belt to stop a car that
had failed to stop for police. The car was driving at speeds of
approximately 170 kilometres per hour. While attempting to
deploy the belt the constable was killed instantly by the car
that had veered into the officer to avoid hitting the spike belt.
1405
This is why many police officers continue to be in favour of
police chases. Mr. Norm Gardner, head of the Toronto Police
Services Board, warned of the following:
The death of Constable Sonnenberg was one of these tragedies.
The criminal who killed Constable Sonnenberg could also have
easily killed a child or an elderly person. This person could
have escaped altogether and gone on to commit other horrible
crimes that could have been prevented through immediate
incarceration following a successful police pursuit.
I would like to add that another crime was committed as the man
who killed Constable Sonnenberg was only sentenced to six years
for criminal negligence causing death. Under the provisions of
Bill C-440 this reckless criminal would have received life
imprisonment.
Police pursuit is not the answer to correcting the problem of
flight and the subsequent police chase. Nevertheless, it is the
most effective means of criminal apprehension that we currently
have. Because of honest completion it effectively ends a
criminal's threat to the general public.
What I suggest is that if we allow for police pursuit in
addition to the enforcement of Bill C-440, we will be legislating
a strong deterrent to the criminal population. This strong
deterrent may force second thoughts in the minds of criminals
involved in the aforementioned crimes. Such thoughts may have
prevented these tragedies and the victims who lost their lives
might still be with us today.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
want to join the chorus of members congratulating the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for his work on this issue. I sense a
bit of a consensus building here. I am optimistic that can be
motivated and activated to get the bill passed as quickly as we
possibly can.
Essentially Bill C-440 would make it a criminal offence to use
an automobile while being pursued by a peace officer in order to
evade a peace officer and fail to stop as soon as it is
reasonable to do so. A person who does that would face a prison
term not exceeding two years. In addition, anyone who uses an
automobile to evade police in the process and injures another
person would be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
10 years. Anyone causing death would be liable to imprisonment
for life. Those are certainly very serious consequences, but
they are warranted because the act of evading police is a very
serious action.
Since 1992 in Ontario alone there have been 30 people killed as
a result of people using automobiles to evade police pursuit. In
the example that has been alluded to of Constable Richard
Sonnenberg in Alberta, it should be pointed out that the person
that hit him was fleeing police because his licence was under
suspension. It is a situation where in the mindset of people it
is acceptable to do whatever it takes to evade police independent
of or not accepting that there are any consequences to that
action.
The decisions that have to be made in police chases are very
complex. They are impacted in a sense because of the very short
time line in which they have to be made. I feel we are doing a
great disservice to the police, the men and women who are
attempting to preserve and safeguard the public, if we fail to
clearly acknowledge that the responsibility for these accidents
and the subsequent deaths and countless injuries belongs to the
felon who is wilfully evading the law. The focus of Bill C-440 is
the activity of evasion.
To quote the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, who put
it so eloquently, it is “a wanton, reckless and at times tragic
act by an individual using a motor vehicle to escape from the
police”. We are talking about focusing on the act of fleeing
and making sure that act has consequences which would force
people to consider them before they engage in that very dangerous
activity.
It is certainly true that any time a driver fails to stop for a
police officer there is the potential for a dangerous situation
to unfold. Individuals who choose to flee from police by means
resulting in a high speed chase cause inordinate risk to the
safety of the public and the police, meriting special criminal
sanction. That is what Bill C-440 is trying to do.
Police pursuits cannot be completely eliminated. The hon.
member talked about the issue surrounding that. They are no easy
solutions; they are complex matters. They cannot be regulated or
controlled by policing statutes to the point where motorists will
never be at risk.
There will always be situations where this type of police
response will be appropriate.
1410
Licensing and other forms of provincial control and regulation
do not provide a sufficient deterrent. Current dangerous driving
provisions of the Criminal Code are inadequate to deal with this
action. Criminal records resulting from such conviction do not
specifically relate to the relevant fact of the nature of the
offence and the offender's specific intent to flee the police. As
has been pointed out, criminal sanctions for current offences
involving police pursuits are also inadequate.
There are many any factors in the decision to begin or continue
a pursuit which is always made with public safety in mind. All
too frequently incidents do occur where police officers and
members of the public have been seriously harmed or killed
because someone failed to stop. Policies and procedures
governing police chases are the responsibility of individual
police agencies and provincial governments. While those policies
are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government, again
as has been pointed out, putting this legislation in the Criminal
Code provides the teeth that provincial governments need to put
in place their regulations.
The bill is about recognizing the rule of law in society. I
have lived in countries where this is not the case. I can assure
hon. members that respect and trust for the authority of the
police are critical for a well functioning society.
Not long ago it was not considered serious to consume alcohol
and jump into a vehicle and drive home. I spent the Easter break
talking to students in various schools. I can assure the House
there has been a fundamental value shift in the minds of young
people in Canada that drinking and driving is no longer seen as
an acceptable option. We need a very similar value shift with
regard to fleeing the police. We need to instil in the minds of
Canadians that the act of fleeing the police is a criminal
offence with criminal consequences.
In conclusion, too many police officers and civilians have been
injured or killed because someone chose to flee from the police.
While there is not a single solution to this problem, making such
behaviour a criminal offence will deter some and send a strong
message to others that such dangerous behaviour will not be
tolerated.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today and to take
this opportunity to speak to Bill C-440, introduced by the hon.
member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
I have to say this bill strikes a chord with me just like it
does for many Canadians. All opinion polls in Canada show
clearly the great trust Canadians have for our police forces
throughout Canada. These polls show a level of trust that is
perhaps one of the highest in the western world.
[English]
The issue of fleeing the police is one that our Criminal Code
does not address sufficiently. I think my colleague from
Leeds—Grenville, who just finished speaking, stated it quite
eloquently when he described how the Criminal Code dealt with
individuals driving motor vehicles whom the police were
attempting to intercept; what happened when accidents occurred,
when injuries were caused and in some cases death; and how the
Criminal Code was unfortunately lacking in that regard.
Bill C-440 is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to
using a motor vehicle and failing to stop for a police officer,
or in legal terms flight, as has already been mentioned by other
members on both sides of the House.
As has already been stated, the act of fleeing often leads to
death or injury to the individual committing it, to the police
officers who are trying to fulfil their lawful duty to protect
the public, or in many cases to innocent bystanders who just
happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
At first view the bill may seem to be the product of common
sense. It is to me and, as we have heard in the House, to many
other members.
To some it may even appear to be odd that our Criminal Code
should already have a provision to deal precisely with this. It
does not.
1415
I have had personal experience, not by having been injured by
someone fleeing the police and driving a motor vehicle, obviously
not by having been killed, but in my former life before entering
politics I was deputy commissioner for police ethics for the
province of Quebec. In that role, for over nine years I had to
deal with a significant number of complaints from families who
had a family member who was a victim or was killed because of the
precise event that is described in this legislation and which
this bill attempts to deal with. They were very upset that the
police did not bring stronger criminal charges against the
individual who was operating the motor vehicle and was attempting
to flee police who in the performance of their lawful duties were
attempting to intercept them.
As deputy commissioner I had the legal obligation to inform
those complainants time after time that unfortunately the police
and the justice department had done exactly what they were
lawfully authorized to do under the Criminal Code in the manner
in which they dealt with that suspect who had fled. It was very
difficult to have to tell a family who had had a family member
injured or killed that that was the only way in which the justice
department and the police force could deal with the individual
who had caused that injury or death.
It is not something I enjoyed doing, obviously. It is one of
the reasons why I am very happy to support the bill of the member
for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
I want to come back specifically to the bill. It has been
mentioned in the House that since 1991 at least 39 people have
been killed under the circumstances that this bill addresses.
Thirty-nine people are a lot. Were these cases of dangerous
driving, or was there more to it? Most people in Canada think
that when someone is driving at speeds that pass the legal limit
in an attempt to flee police officers who are within their legal
right to intercept them goes beyond what we would consider to be
dangerous driving.
It is also clear when someone is not interested and is not
willing to stop when a police officer attempts to intercept them
and they know it is a police officer. We are not talking about
someone who thinks it is an unidentified car that is attempting
to intercept them. They have no idea. They may think a car
jacking is under way and they attempt to save themselves. We are
not talking about those circumstances.
We are talking about circumstances where the police are clearly
identified and the individual operating the motor vehicle knows
beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a police officer who is
attempting to intercept them and that individual continues to
attempt to flee or refuses to stop. Those are the circumstances
we are talking about. We cannot term that as simply dangerous
driving. It goes beyond that. It is wilful disrespect and
disregard for human life, which is something no Canadian shares.
We talk a lot about Canadian values. One of the highest
Canadian values is precisely the respect and regard for human
life. We can link it with what I said when I talked about the
fact that poll after poll after poll has shown that Canadians
enjoy a high trust of our police services. The very act of
wilfully fleeing a police officer in the lawful performance of
his or her duty in attempting to intercept an individual requires
the strongest response on the part of our government, on the part
of Canadian society and on the part of our institutions,
including our justice institutions, through our Criminal Code.
1420
It would be very difficult to find an ordinary Canadian on the
street who would say that this bill is not justified and that
this bill does not really address the issue and who would not
support this bill.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Canadian
Police Association for its support for this bill.
I am not aware if the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
supports this bill, but I have to say, knowing many police chiefs
across Canada, I believe I could be safe in saying that there is
probably support for this bill.
I am someone who is known both within my riding and beyond its
boundaries in matters of justice to be a proponent of prevention,
rehabilitation and in the last resort, retribution. However, I
feel that this is a bill which needs to be supported. This is a
bill whose time has come and I support it.
As I conclude my remarks on this, Madam Speaker, I believe
you would find consent in the House to have the motion for second
reading of Bill C-440 deemed adopted, allowing said bill to
proceed to committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
agreement to proceed in such a way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Bill deemed read the second time and referred to a
committee)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 2.22 p.m., this
House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.22 p.m.)