John M. Cummins

[Airline Safety, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Vancouver International Airport is a busy place with over 1,000 aircraft movements a day, the majority of which are large commercial aircraft whose flight path takes them over the mud flats on the Straits of Georgia.

Both the coast guard and the airport disaster plan call for the availability of two hovercraft to provide continuous, round the clock emergency services on the water.

We are now told that the replacement for the aging, soon to be retired back up hovercraft is unfit for service in extreme weather, undermining continuity of service.

Why does the government not believe that the over 16 million passengers who will use the Vancouver airport this year are not entitled to round the clock emergency services?

[Question No. 64—, February 22nd, 2002]

On the Skeena River system in in-river fisheries, excluding the recreational and lower river public commercial fishery, for each calendar year from 1990 to 2000 inclusive: ( a ) how many fish of what species were caught under the authority of Excess to Salmon Spawning Requirement licences; ( b ) how many fish of what species were caught under the authority of other licences on a per licence basis; ( c ) what groups or organizations harvested the fish caught under each licence; ( d ) how much of any catch was sold; ( e ) what was the value of the sales; ( f ) who purchased any fish caught; ( g ) who processed any fish sold; ( h ) what quantity was sold in fresh, canned, fresh frozen, pouch and other packaging; ( i ) what quantity of the fish was eventually sold in domestic retail Canadian markets; ( j ) what quantity of the fish was exported from Canada and into what markets; and ( k ) with respect to the funds generated from the sale of the fish, for what purposes were the funds used on a project-by-project basis?

[Question No. 63—, February 22nd, 2002]

With regard to the Treaties of Peace and Friendship of 1760-61 entered into between the Crown and aboriginal groups in the Maritimes, can the government: ( a ) name each of the agreements; ( b ) indicate what is the specific geographic area and aboriginal community covered by each of these agreements; and ( c ) what is the amount of expenditure under each of the agreements for 1999-2000, 2000-01 and planned expenditure in 2001-02?

[Privilege, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will reply to your questions from yesterday.

My argument and that of other opposition members on the committee was that the scrutiny of regulations committee had made a finding that the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations were illegal. I argued that the committee and the department of fisheries had engaged in inexcusable delays in acting on the finding and that after five years the only remaining issue to be decided was the date of the tabling of the disallowance report. Of late the committee has been taking about twice as long as in the past to table its disallowance reports.

It was argued in committee that the honour of the crown is at stake when fishermen are prosecuted under admittedly illegal regulations and when the committee dithers not about the illegality of the regulations but about when they should be revoked.

Mr. Bernier has taken a contrary position. He says the committee is highly effective in carrying out its responsibilities. He says its handling of the aboriginal communal fishing licences regulations has been in order. That of course is the position of the government majority on the committee.

Mr. Bernier claims to be merely setting the record straight or correcting errors in the public record. If Mr. Bernier were correct I would not only not have a question of privilege. I and other members of the opposition would have no issue with either the committee's handling of its 1997 finding that the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations were illegal or the timing of the tabling of the disallowance report.

Mr. Bernier's claim that the committee is working effectively and efficiently with regard to the fishing regulations goes to the very heart of the argument before the committee and in a February 11 Hill Times story entitled “Opposition parties say regulatory feet-dragging hurting fishing industry”.

Mr. Speaker, you asked if Mr. Bernier was merely correcting errors in the public record as contained in the regulatory foot dragging story, a story which chronicles government foot dragging and blocking of action in the scrutiny of regulations committee to prevent tabling of a disallowance report on the illegal fishing regulations. The answer is an emphatic no. Mr. Bernier does not correct errors.

I will be specific. Mr. Bernier wrote that the committee did not first look at the issue in January 1997. He said it did not do so until November 1997. The fact is, the committee's general counsel was directed to review the fishing regulations on January 3, 1997. The general counsel's legal analysis that the regulations were illegal was dated March 20, 1997. What did occur in November 1997 was that the committee adopted the position that the regulations were illegal and decided to advise the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of its finding.

Mr. Bernier then goes on to other dates where he disagrees with my position in committee and the regulatory foot dragging--

[Privilege, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the second question first, the matter has not been raised in committee because the committee has not met. I understood that my obligation was to raise the matter at the first opportunity in the House, and I did so.

In discussing the letter in particular, the substance of the letter was the issue which was under discussion in committee. There was a question about whether or not committee was acting quickly enough and whether in fact letters were sent when direction was given. Those issues were discussed in committee.

There was some disagreement among committee members, as I am sure the Chair would understand, as to the expediency with which things took place, but that was the substance of the discussion in committee.

My view, and I think I expressed it quite clearly at committee, is that this matter was decided in 1997. The committee found that these regulations were beyond the law in 1997. I pointed out to the committee that in other matters which have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada the justices of the supreme court, especially in aboriginal matters, have suggested that the government must deal straight up with people, that it should not be seen to be dealing in a sharp fashion because the integrity and the honour of the crown was at stake.

I suggested to committee members that fishermen on the west coast understand this notion full well. They understand that these regulations have been questioned by the committee since 1997 and in fact have protested. People have gone to jail over this very matter.

The matter is not one without substance. That was the issue before the committee. The concerns that were expressed were that people, citizens, should have faith that their government is acting in an appropriate and proper fashion.

My view was that the committee was dragging its feet. It found that these regulations were illegal back in 1997 and here we are in 2002, many protests later, with people having gone to jail, with literally hundreds of thousands of dollars having been spent on court cases on the very issue of people are trying to protect their livelihood.

That is the debate in which the clerk has engaged in his response in the Hill Times. His responses would most appropriately be made or could have been made by members on the other side but should not have been made by an impartial participant or observer such as the committee chair.

[Privilege, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege is resulting from a letter entitled “Federal scrutiny committee most effective in Canada” published on page 5 of the February 18, 2002 edition of the Hill Times newspaper.

From the outset I make it crystal clear that I in no way want to criticize the exemplary services provided to me by the vast majority of staff at the Library of Parliament. However the author of the letter, François Bernier, who happens to be legal counsel for the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, takes sides in a political debate that took place at the February 7 meeting of said committee.

The topic of the debate concerned whether or not the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations has been effective in carrying out its duties with regard to its 1997 finding that the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations are illegal and the tabling of a disallowance report on the illegal regulations.

By writing a letter to the editor of the Hill Times newspaper the legal counsel for the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations has interfered in what amounts to a political debate. It matters little whether he were advised by government members to write the letter on their behalf or whether he is merely adopting their position as his own personal opinion.

Mr. Bernier has undermined the confidence bestowed upon Library of Parliament staff assigned to committees. Any suggestion of partiality or partisanship by committee counsel automatically shows disrespect and amounts to contempt. Questions as to whether or not the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations has been effective or not, or dragged its feet on its 1997 finding that the aboriginal communal fishing licences regulations are illegal and on its handling of the disallowance report on the illegal regulations, are political matters to be debated by members of parliament and not by committee staff on their behalf.

I would not want to infringe upon anyone's right to free expression. However, by sending a letter to the Hill Times using committee letterhead and signing it as general counsel of the committee, he has undermined his responsibility and duty to provide fair and impartial legal counsel to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

I would equate this to the impartiality we expect from the chairs of committees and the Speaker himself. Any partialities shown by the Speaker would provoke a motion to censure and would be considered a matter of privilege.

There are those in parliament who must remain impartial if we as members are to do our jobs effectively and unimpeded. My right as an elected member for the riding of Delta--South Richmond to fair and impartial legal counsel from parliamentary staff has been compromised by the actions of the legal counsel for the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

Should you rule that there exists a prima facie question of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Question No. 89—, February 7th, 2002]

With regard to the Departments of Transport and Fisheries and Oceans’ port and harbour divestiture program and the planned divestiture of the Billings Bay Float: ( a ) when was the Billings Bay Float put in place; ( b ) why was the Billings Bay Float put in place; ( c ) why was the Billings Bay Float offered to the Billings Bay Float Society; ( d ) when was the Billings Float offered to the Billings Bay Float Society; ( e ) when did the Billings Bay Float Society respond by a letter of intent; ( f ) how was the letter of intent inconsistent with the objectives of the port and harbour divestiture program; ( g ) when did the Departments formally withdraw their offer to divest the Billings Bay Float; ( h ) why did the Departments withdraw their offer to divest the Billings Bay Float; ( i ) why did the Departments reject the Billings Bay Float Society's letter of intent; ( j ) when was the Billings Bay Float removed from Billings Bay; ( k ) why was the Billings Bay Float removed from Billings Bay; ( l ) who used the Billings Bay Float as a place of refuge in storms; ( m ) what alternate safe moorages exist for kayakers, canoeists, local residents, weekend-sailors and others in case of storms; and ( n ) what was the annual maintenance cost of the Billings Bay Float?

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, September 11 revealed that Canada was not prepared and was in fact ill equipped to deal with terrorists operating within our country who had as their objective the destruction of our society and that of our neighbour, the United States.

The federal government had downgraded security at our borders. Immigration officers were woefully ill equipped to ensure that our immigration laws were not misused by those who came to Canada to engage in terrorism. In addition, the refugee determination system was packed with political cronies of the government who were prepared to put narrow political interests ahead of Canadians. Our security service, CSIS, had been downgraded through aggressive cuts to its budget and a general disregard for what it was designed to do. Our armed forces had been systematically run down by this government. The numbers in our military have drastically declined, as have the military budget and equipment, since this government came to office. September 11 exposed the government's failures.

Clearly there is a need to act to protect Canadians. We have a right to feel secure, to feel that we are safe from terrorist threats. September 11 revealed that we are not safe.

In the rush to respond to the public's desire to feel secure at home, the government has brought before parliament legislation that is designed to make the government appear to be protecting Canadians. The emphasis of the government has been on appearances. The result has been poorly thought out legislation designed to make the government appear to be tough on terrorism. Some of the critics of the government and the legislation have tended to focus on the loss of civil liberties. I have a great deal of sympathy for their concerns.

Professor Don Stuart of Queen's University Faculty of Law wrote a paper entitled “The Dangers of Quick Fix Legislation in the Criminal Law: the Anti-Terrorism Bill C-36 should be Withdrawn”. It appeared in a recently published book from the University of Toronto Press which addresses these issues.

Professor Stuart states:

What cannot be supported are the complex new criminal laws in Bill C-36. When the State turns to its power to punish and imprison the standard of justification should be high. Basic principles of a criminal justice system that deserves the name require the State to prove both that the individual acted and was at fault, that responsibility is fairly labelled and that any punishment is proportionate to the accused's actions. In my view the creation of the crimes in Bill C-36...cut across these principles and should be withdrawn. The new State power grab is unnecessary, will not make Canadians safer--

I do not think the government has adequately responded to the criticism of people such as Professor Stuart.

While parliament must give expression to and effectively articulate such concerns, we must make it clear that our normal criminal laws were essentially designed to deal with those who are attempting to better themselves through criminal acts as opposed to those who are bent on destroying our society. If we need extraordinary measures to deal with those who are bent on destroying our society, then parliament must be presented with clearly defined measures to deal with these special threats. I have trouble believing that Bill C-36 will address the real problems that have undermined Canadian security.

The government has proposed Bill C-36 as a way of convincing Canadians that their security interests are being protected and that the government is taking action to ensure that terrorists cannot operate in Canada to advance their causes. The reality is that Bill C-36 may do little to protect us from terrorism and yet may unnecessarily infringe our historic rights as citizens in a free and democratic society, rights that have been in development since the Magna Carta.

I find the comments of Linda Williamson in the Toronto Sun on November 22 helpful. She stated:

—we now have experts warning that the anti-terrorism bill, in practice, won't really make much difference—it's legally cumbersome and inefficient. That's the discussion we should be having, given this government's weakness for awkward, ineffective and largely symbolic legislation—

She goes on to state:

While everyone's been indulging in esoteric, academic argument over whether this law might conceivably do harm, we should be asking whether it will do any good. Will it actually help police and our courts stop terrorists and severely punish them? Or is it just another PR exercise, designed to make the government look like it's doing something (and a clumsy one at that)?

I believe that the sunset provisions are inadequate. There are no effective measures for parliamentary oversight. The three year parliamentary review provisions in the bill do not require an actual vote.

The fisheries committee has just completed such a parliamentary review of the Oceans Act. From my experience with the review of the Oceans Act, I can advise that such a review provision has little value and is dangerous if it is considered to be a substitute for real parliamentary oversight.

I have little confidence that this government will act appropriately in applying these laws.

We know that the government has sought to limit the power of parliamentary commissioners such as the auditor general and the information commissioner. I remain concerned that the government will use Bill C-36 to protect itself from the scrutiny of these officers of parliament. Such actions will not advance the security needs of Canadians. Instead they will advance the political security needs of the government rather than the people.

Professor Stuart of Queen's University expresses the concern that the government will apply political expediency in its application of Bill C-36. He states:

Expect Canada to embrace George Bush's most wanted list which excludes well established groups...not because they don't fit violent terrorist criteria but for reasons of political comity and expediency.

Fishermen on the west coast have protested the government's undermining of the public right to fish. As a fisherman and as a member of parliament I have joined fisherman in these protests designed to protect their historic right to fish. Would I and other fishermen fall under the net covered by Bill C-36? A government that would flout the constitutional and common law right of fishing could not be trusted to protect their right to freely protest the government's actions.

It was a desire for political expediency and for vote getting that caused the government to refuse to deal with the surges in illegal immigration and the swamping of our refugee determination system.

Australia has addressed these real threats to its security and immigration laws while Canada has brought forward Bill C-36, which fails to address the security issues in the failed administration of our immigration laws. Diane Francis, in the National Post , recently summarized the problem. She stated:

—In early October, Australia got its act together regarding bogus refugees. Like Canada, it has been flooded in the past and has finally gotten wise. Philip Ruddock, Australia's Minister of Immigration, announced: Anyone arriving from a safe country by illegal means will be returned. Anyone arriving without documentation will be rejected. A refugee who leaves the country cannot return. A refugee cannot bring dependants along. Those convicted of smuggling people will be given severe prison sentences.

Philip Ruddock stated:

By assisting us in our fight to repel the activities of people smugglers, these new laws will enable us to help those who are most in need of help—those people languishing in refugee camps around the world...In recent times the number of people entering Australia illegally meant we had no choice but to divert humanitarian program places away from our offshore program, which helps people identified as being in need of resettlement by the UN.

Canada has long, sparsely inhabited coastlines on the west, the north and the east coasts. Last week at its hearings in British Columbia the fisheries committee learned firsthand how much of B.C. is unmonitored. While Canada has the ability to use radar to monitor vessels coming into Canadian waters, the ability exists only on the lower half of Vancouver Island. The bulk of the west coast is open to all illegal arrivals, whether bent on mere economic gain for themselves or on terrorism.

In Ontario and Quebec there has been an illegal flow of people and goods at Indian reserves that straddle or abut the Canada-U.S. border. The government has refused to take effective measures. I doubt that Bill C-36 is needed to address this problem and I doubt that it is likely to help address this problem. The problem up to now has been a lack of political will, not merely a lack of effective statute law. Bill C-36 is not a substitute for political will.

The failure of the government to respond to terrorism in the air by putting air marshals on passenger aircraft is but an example of the government's refusal to take concrete measures to protect Canadian citizens.

I find Bill C-36 troubling and in the final analysis I would be uncomfortable supporting it. I am concerned that the government may well use the new power provided in Bill C-36 to stamp out legitimate dissent while at the same time ignoring the real threats to Canadian society posed by our porous borders.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when I commented on the disappearance of the cod, I was responding to the suggestion of my friend from Lac-Saint-Louis that somehow these marine protected areas might assist in preventing that sort of thing from happening again.

My take on the cod issue is that there were too many politics in place in the allocation of access to the cod resource. What was really lacking were clear principles to manage the fisheries resource by. That is something that is still out there somewhere but has not been clearly stated. The minister has the authority but he must establish some clear principles by which to manage that resource. They must be principles against which we can measure his performance and thus hold him accountable. That is the best way to protect that fisheries resource.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with a provincial government stating that it wants to establish some sort of a marine park on its shores. In many ways it is certainly more accountable to the people that live in that province than we are in this place. That is just the nature of the government. I certainly do not have any difficulty with the federal government acting on that request of a provincial government.

The one caution I would make is that act can be complicated, especially in waters such as the Gulf of St. Lawrence where there are competing provincial jurisdictions and competing interests from other provinces. The lines in many respects are not clear there and that could be a complicating factor.

I do not have a problem with the principle of a province suggesting to the federal government minister that it would like something to happen, something that is not harmful to the environment but which may well help it, but ultimately the federal minister must have the clear responsibility to protect the resource because when things go wrong we have to know who to hold accountable.