Stephen Owen

[Justice, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware that there is an opportunity to go before a federal court judge to have the matter reviewed and to be de-listed.

[Justice, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 is comprehensive legislation. It deals with many aspects of matters going to court and people being listed against the threat of terrorism. We have never in our criminal law had a policy of compensation for people who are accused, prosecuted and acquitted.

However if public officials behave improperly or with negligence, then they can be liable for civil action. This could be the case in this situation.

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the judges in superior courts and provincial courts in Canada have the responsibility to ensure that all accused before them have a fair trial. Where evidence is brought before a court that is deemed by the government under certificate of the solicitor general or otherwise to be highly sensitive, the judge will consider that evidence in private and decide whether it is necessary to go in summary form or not. If it is not and a fair trial cannot be maintained, then the accused will be dismissed.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak tonight on this topic which is critically important for all Canadians and of particular concern for the people of British Columbia.

This is a major crisis. We cannot pretend that it is anything but that. In British Columbia thousands of people are out of work, we hope temporarily. Thousands more are at risk. Communities whose major source of economic strength is in the lumber industry are at risk and are worrying through this terrible time. The whole economy and revenues of British Columbia and the revenues and the economic security of our country are at risk in this situation.

In the short time, less than a year, that I have been in parliament I have not seen another issue that has been given this prolonged and serious consideration. We have to examine what has been done.

At every week's meeting of the B.C. caucus this issue has been at the top of the list. We have regular meetings with the Minister for International Trade. This issue is brought up regularly in national caucus with the utmost urgency.

Support has been given by the B.C. caucus for the position of the international trade minister and the government, particularly for unity across the country. Different regions should not be treated differently, in particular regions like Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and Manitoba, with British Columbia leading all making up almost half of our exports to the United States.

The important thing is all of the concentrated effort. This has been difficult. The issue is complex and obviously is not being solved quickly, but it must be solved fairly and finally. There has been a concentration of effort and constant communication, the Prime Minister with the U.S. president, the trade minister with the American commerce secretary, the U.S. trade representative and now with Governor Marc Racicot, the U.S. emissary appointed by President Bush.

Let us look at the history for a moment to see how we can bring this together at this time. These arguments across the border have been going on for 100 years but increasingly, and we have heard many people speak of it over the last 20 years, Canada has faced charges of subsidy in particular. Canada has taken the issue to various dispute resolution tribunals and courts and has always won. This is not an issue of subsidy. Let us put that to rest.

We have a public land management system in British Columbia and in many other parts of Canada. That is pointed to by some U.S. producers who favour protectionism and protecting their own perhaps inefficient practices.

I can speak of British Columbia with knowledge. We have high standards of sustainable logging practices. These have costs. It is not a matter of low stumpage. It is a matter of sustainable logging. It is a matter of sustaining employment in the communities. It is a matter of managing forest practices for biodiversity. It is a matter of ensuring that roads are built carefully and decommissioned. It is a matter of making sure there is protection for streams and if damage has been done in the past to restore them. It is a matter of ensuring that reforestation takes place in the most varied, healthy and realistic way for the continuation of the wealth and health of the forests.

This is not a matter of subsidy. It is a matter of protectionism in the United States. What action can we take? Let us look at two of the major Canadian and American forest products companies, Weyerhaeuser, the largest forest products company in the world, and Louisiana-Pacific.

Weyerhaeuser and Louisiana-Pacific operate on both sides of the border. Their corporate message to all of us is that there is no appreciable difference in economic returns between logging in British Columbia or anywhere else in Canada and on the U.S. side. These simply are not subsidies and the courts keep telling us that. What do we do?

Leading up to the expiry of the softwood lumber agreement at the end of last March, the unified Canadian position led by the Canadian government with the agreement of Canadian industry and the Canadian provinces was that we wanted free trade. We did not want an extension of that agreement of managed trade and quotas on exports. We wanted free trade. That is our right. That is what we bargained for and that is what we want to get. That was the position of all of us.

What happened after the expiry? It is punitive action that is discriminatory, biased and unrelated to the true facts of the situation and it is patently unreasonable. That is the problem we are facing.

How do we go ahead? We stay unified. That unity must be preserved. We also have to litigate. The Canadian government is litigating now before the World Trade Organization.

We saw today in the Globe and Mail a report on business written by David Emerson, the president of Canfor, the largest Canadian forest products company. He announced that he and his company are taking the U.S. government to the NAFTA tribunal before an impartial panel under chapter 11 to sue the U.S. government for $250 million in damages for the dumping penalties that it has introduced. This is an important act. This is the rule of law. This is the free trade we agreed to. It is good to see Mr. Emerson and other corporate leaders in Canada standing up for their rights in the same way. Canada is doing the same at the WTO.

Talking about sustainable logging practices and the beauty of British Columbia old growth forests, it was interesting to see the painting that Mr. Emerson was standing in front of in that major newspaper article. It is a painting of a magnificent old growth forest on the Queen Charlotte Islands. It is by one of Canada's greatest modern artists, John Koerner, a constituent of Vancouver--Quadra. I am very pleased to say he is also my father-in-law. That painting and Mr. Emerson's actions in front of it, if anything, can represent the beauty, the wealth and the health, but the health at high cost to our forest companies, of the sound logging practices in British Columbia.

We litigate but we also engage. We must remember the engagement from last fall. Whom were we to engage with other than to say we were going to insist on free trade when the softwood lumber agreement expired? There was a change in administration and there was some confusion about who was president. The U.S. trade representative was not even appointed and confirmed until March. In any event, we were unified in terms of going for free trade.

Let us engage. We have had a series of discussions now. The provinces, the states, our national governments have gotten together, advised by industry on all sides. The understanding is growing. Let us think. President Bush has appointed his close confidant Governor Racicot to act as his emissary. He is engaged with our trade minister. He has said that he wants this issue settled in four to five weeks. Increasingly Canada has allies in the United States and I am speaking of the American people who are going to pay higher prices.

Let us turn finally not from subsidies, not to the Canadian situation, but to what do the Americans want? Do they want fewer imports? Do they want higher prices? The American public is made up of home builders and suppliers and consumers. What do they want? The answer is clear and it is going to come together quickly, we hope. We will support industry and the people who are affected directly as much as possible, but we are going to solve this once and for all with free trade on a just basis.

[Science and Engineering, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the very accomplished individuals receiving awards granted by the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada today.

Dr. David Schindler of the University of Alberta received the Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal for Science and Engineering. This $1 million research prize is one of the largest awards for science in North America and recognizes Dr. Schindler's enormous contribution to the field of ecology.

I also recognize the winners of the NSERC 2001 Steacie fellowships and doctoral prizes. Steacie fellowships are awarded to the most outstanding Canadian university scientists or engineers who have earned their doctorates within the last 12 years.

One of the recipients is Dr. Sarah Otto of the department of zoology at the University of British Columbia which is located in my riding of Vancouver Quadra.

NSERC also awarded the first Howard Alper Post-doctoral Prize to Dr. Glenn Tattersall, also of the University of British Columbia.

[Independence of the RCMP, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government of Canada to the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert concerning recommendation 31.3.1 of the APEC interim report of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

It is extremely important to underline the fact that this is an interim report and therefore an interim recommendation that we are considering.

Before commencing on the particulars of the motion, I would like to remind the members of the House that this is just one among several recommendations set out in the interim report. That report also represents just one stage in the civilian oversight process for dealing with public complaints about the RCMP.

What is the civilian oversight process for the RCMP and does the House play a role in it? Let me begin by answering the first part of the question.

The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP was created by parliament in 1986. It is a fair, impartial civilian board designed to act in the public interest. The commission is mandated to conduct independent inquiries into complaints about the RCMP and to reach objective conclusions based on available information.

Does the House play a role in the oversight process? In responding to the second part of the question, let me quote the chair of the commission, Shirley Heafey, from the commissioner's last annual report. She stated:

In creating this Commission, Parliament acknowledged the need for a fair, impartial and independent agency that would ensure that the rights of both complainants and RCMP members are respected.

She further stated that the process “must maintain the confidence of the public, members of the RCMP and parliament and reflect a clear understanding of the diversity and complexity of Canadian society”. In short, the commission's work must be unfettered by government interference if it is to meet the very purpose to which was created.

To ensure the impartiality of this commission, it is incumbent upon all members of the House to allow the commission to complete its investigation into the APEC complaints. To date, Mr. Hughes has released his interim report and the RCMP commissioner has responded to it. However the process is not yet finished. It is now up to the chair of the commission to consider both the documents and compile her final report with final findings and recommendations.

Civilian oversight is an essential safeguard in ensuring the integrity of the police. There are times when police must take necessary measures to apprehend criminals to ensure public safety. There are also times when police conduct is called into question. The freedom to question any perceived wrongdoing is fundamental to a law enforcement system that reflects and protects our core values of freedom, democracy and equality.

Police work must therefore be transparent and the police must be held accountable. That is why it is essential that we respect the independent civilian review process that is currently under way.

I believe that we can be assured of this independence through the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. The commission has 13 years of experience with a solid record for just and thorough deliberations. The government is confident that the commission will diligently review all the information brought before it to date and complete a fair and comprehensive final report.

It would therefore be both premature and improper for the House to endorse this motion because it pre-empts the conclusions of the commission chair. The commission must be given the opportunity to complete its work by using the process put in place by parliament.

The government acknowledges that the APEC public interest hearing is the longest and most complex in the commission's history, but that is why the commission must have the time it needs to thoroughly assess the complex issues before it. Let us not second guess the final recommendations. Let us allow the chair to complete this legitimate independent process and convey her recommendations.

I would now like to comment briefly on the substance of the motion which calls upon the government to set out in writing the nature and scope of the RCMP's independence in its relations with the government.

In his interim report Mr. Hughes recommended that this independence be reflected in statute. He also proposed five principles concerning the RCMP's independence from government. These principles recognize the RCMP's complete independence from government when it is performing law enforcement functions and its accountability to government when performing other functions unrelated to criminal investigations. They also emphasize the RCMP's accountability to the law and the courts in all situations and the RCMP's responsibility for weighing security requirements against the charter rights of citizens.

Who would disagree with any of these principles? In his public response to the interim report of Mr. Hughes, RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli announced that these principles would form the basis for a clear national policy statement. Commissioner Zaccardelli gave the assurance that:

All members of the RCMP, particularly those involved in the delivery of security arrangements at major public order events, will be expected to have a clear and thorough understanding of this issue.

I commend the commissioner for taking this step. It will be particularly timely as the RCMP prepares the security arrangements for next year's G-8 summit in Kananaskis.

In conclusion, let me repeat that it would be improper for the House to endorse the motion. It is the role of the commission chair to consider both the interim report and the response of Commissioner Zaccardelli. The commission represents the public interests by ensuring that the issues raised from all sides are considered fairly and answered fully. This process should unfold without any influence by parliament. Let us support the civilian oversight process as parliament had intended by giving the chair the opportunity to make her final recommendations.

[Children of Divorced Parents, November 2nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member who has presented Motion No. 186. It has laudable intentions. However I will take the opportunity to outline the reasons the Minister of Justice cannot support the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Prince George--Peace River.

As presented to the House, Motion No. 186 proposes to amend the Divorce Act so that all children whose parents are divorcing have the opportunity to speak to a skilled professional with a view to providing them the opportunity to be heard when parenting decisions affecting them are being made. It is a laudable intention. The motion would also give the court the authority to appoint a person to support and represent the child.

Separation and divorce are difficult for children. The family law system must be responsive to their needs. It is important for the children's well-being that parents and others involved in the justice system learn more about taking the wishes of children into account when making decisions that concern their living arrangements. However they must do so without making the children the decision makers.

According to article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to which Canada is a party, governments should recognize that children capable of forming their own views have the right depending on their age and maturity to participate in a meaningful way in decisions that affect their lives. Such participation may be direct with the children speaking for themselves, or indirect with someone else presenting the children's views or interests.

Although the intention of Motion No. 186 is laudable the Minister of Justice cannot support it for two important reasons. First, it is inconsistent with the government's commitment to a comprehensive strategy for reforming the family law system that deals with child custody and access.

Second, it is inconsistent with the government's commitment to work closely with the provinces and territories to develop co-ordinated reforms that respect the constitutional divisions of powers and responsibilities. I will explain this.

In its May 1999 response to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access the government announced a strategy to identify reforms, particularly reforms respecting amendments to the Divorce Act. The strategy is based on the primary principle that the individual needs, best interests and well-being of children are paramount.

The government's strategy is rooted in four principles. First, there is a desire to promote child centred reforms that focus on minimizing the negative impact of divorce on children. The strategy identifies the need to reform the legal rules, principles and processes that would better structure the decision making process in a child centred way and shift the focus of the family law system from parental rights to parental responsibility.

Second, the government is committed to work closely with the provinces and territories to pursue co-ordinated multi jurisdictional efforts while respecting the division of powers and responsibilities in the area of shared constitutional responsibility.

Third, there is a critical need to explore a broad range of measures to support families going through the separation and divorce process. Statutory amendments alone cannot address many of the problems that are in reality only partly legal in nature.

Fourth, we must recognize that each family has unique characteristics and experiences divorce and separation differently.

The strategy emphasizes the need for a comprehensive government response to address these important issues that have a major impact on children's lives. Motion No. 186 proposes to add only a specific provision to the Divorce Act relating to children's perspectives in divorce proceedings. Although the motion is commendable in its intent it is far too narrow in its scope.

The federal and provincial governments have specific constitutional powers with respect to family law. The territorial governments have specific responsibilities under their original acts. The federal Divorce Act generally applies where parents are divorcing and need to settle child custody, access and support. Provincial and territorial laws apply when unmarried parents separate or when married parents separate and do not pursue a divorce. They also apply to some issues in divorce proceedings.

Currently the federal Divorce Act and provincial and territorial legislation all have the same general legal principles governing custody and access disputes. If the federal law is reformed without corresponding changes to the provincial or territorial laws we risk creating confusion and uncertainty. This would lead to more conflict between parents and an increase in litigation which would only aggravate the difficulties experienced by children.

It is important to remember that provinces and territories have exclusive constitutional jurisdiction over the administration of justice. This includes the responsibility for establishing the rules of civil procedure and administering court services, including procedures respecting Divorce Act matters. We must be very careful to respect this constitutional division of powers when we suggest amendments to the Divorce Act.

What is being proposed by Motion No. 186 would have serious implications for provincial and territorial court services. Motion No. 186 intends to create a section in the Divorce Act that would provide children of divorcing parents an opportunity to express their views to a skilled professional whose duty it would be to make those views known to any judge, assessor or mediator facilitating the determination of parental arrangement.

Implementing the proposed provision would require that services and programs be put in place across Canada. Services would have to be both accessible and affordable for the children of all divorcing spouses. This may be ideal in some cases but it would have major economic consequences on the provinces and territories. They would not respond positively to such a legal requirement and would likely view this as federal intrusion into matters of provincial jurisdiction. Provinces and territories would also likely expect the federal government to provide the financial funding for these services since this legal requirement would be imposed on them by the federal government.

Motion No. 186 also proposes to create a section in the Divorce Act that would provide courts with the authority to appoint an interested third party such as a member of the child's extended family to support and represent a child experiencing difficulties during parental separation or divorce. The section is problematic for two reasons.

First, the Divorce Act only applies to divorcing spouses. The provinces and territories have exclusive jurisdiction over family matters concerning separating parents. Consequently, if this provision were included in the Divorce Act it could only apply to the children of divorcing parents. It seems rather unfair that different services would be available for children depending on whether their parents were separating or divorcing. Unfortunately that would be the result of the proposed motion.

Second, what is being proposed by the motion would have serious implications for provincial and territorial court procedures. It seeks to provide the court with the power to appoint a third party to support or represent the child. Court procedure falls within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Currently the manner in which the children's perspectives are heard in family law proceedings differs in each province and territory. Some provinces and territories have models of legal representation for children, including a child advocate or lawyer, an amicus curiae or friend of the court, or a family advocate, which is a government appointed lawyer who acts in the child's best interests.

These people have specific training to represent children in family law proceedings. The appointment of a family member to represent a child, as proposed by the motion, may not be in the best interests of the child as this person would likely have neither the advocacy skills nor the knowledge of the law and court procedures to properly represent the child.

Alternatively, if the motion is suggesting that there be a nationwide program of child legal representation, then surely it would fall within provincial and territorial jurisdiction and would require a prior commitment by the provinces and territories as well as a large funding commitment by the federal government.

The government has spent a considerable amount of time working with the provinces and territories to improve the family law system for the children of separating and divorcing parents and to develop well considered reform proposals that would promote a more child centred approach to family law. These proposals were described in the consultation document “Putting Children's Interests First: Custody, Access and Child Support in Canada”.

In the spring of 2001, the federal government, in partnership with provinces and territories, held in person consultations in every jurisdiction across Canada. The responses received through the consultation process have informed the federal-provincial-territorial discussions and guide the development of our reforms in the area of custody and access, which the Minister of Justice has committed to table by May 2002.

For these reasons, the Minister of Justice does not support Motion No. 186 at this time.

[Firearms Act, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 has now become law. It is an important matter of national security and it is supported by the vast majority of Canadians. The expense to Canadians is less than $3 per year per Canadian for this extraordinary security that we provide and which the people of Canada support.

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member will, I am sure, remember the extensive testimony before the House committee on justice yesterday, where the police community, both from chiefs to police organizations across the country, recommended against a sunset clause.

However, these committees are taken very seriously by the government. It has been said over and over that the information coming before it and the recommendations coming out of it will be given the fullest consideration.

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government is very grateful to the Senate committee for holding pre-hearings to provide it and the House of Commons justice committee with valuable advice as it considers this important bill.

The Minister of Justice has made it clear repeatedly in the House that the government feels that the bill is within the charter and has the appropriate tools. She has also made it clear, as has the Prime Minister, that we value on this side of the House the advice coming from both House and Senate committees on this important issue.