Fred Mifflin

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I could be flippant and say yes, I do; otherwise I would not have said that. I give the hon. member the dignity of a reply. I think he is trying to be funny as well. I want to tell him that deadly force is defined as a force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

I do not know the background of the hon. member. I would suspect it is as colourful as he would indicate. However, I am sure he would understand that basically at any time or at any place, humanity being what it is, most reasonable people would try to avoid the use of deadly force of one organization or one person against the other, particularly in the unwritten law of the sea, the unwritten law of mariners. It is the same law that basically requires a ship to go to the distress of another ship lost at sea or has lost a man overboard or something of that nature. We have seen many examples in recent days where this has happened.

Certainly as a mariner in my previous incarnation the use of force would be avoided as much as possible. One would not want to use deadly force. One may want to and have to harm a ship. One may want to destroy a rudder or the main engine of a vessel at sea, but the last thing in the world one would want to do is to be put in a position as a fisheries protection officer or the master of a vessel so engaged that would be to cause bodily harm.

I am not sure what the hon. member meant when he said moving people from the stern to the forecastle or the forecastle back to the stern. The name of the game would be basically to vacate that area to which we would cause damage so that there would not be bodily harm to any people involved. Clearly that was the intent of that.

With respect to carrying on for hours and hours I merely use that as an indication to try to convey to the House the situation that one would do almost anything to avoid this. One would make sure that the language was understood. One would make sure that the captain of the vessel understood it. Whether the time was as he said across the ocean, certainly that was not intended. It could take anywhere from one hour to ten hours and the vessel could be dead in the water while all this is going on.

The technical aspects of that were purely intended as an illusory manner to indicate the difficulty one has in actually using deadly force at sea.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and the other members who have engaged in this discussion.

The discussion has been certainly not totally one sided but I sense a predisposition to move in favour of Bill C-8. I want to speak on the bill generally and really amplify an aspect of this which is of great interest to me personally and to the area of Canada that I represent.

To begin with, I appreciate and understand the excellent point that was made by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, that this bill in no way precludes or tries to restrict the use of force by a peace officer.

As I understand it, it is merely attempting to clarify the position of peace officers following the judgment in the Ontario Supreme Court decision which basically declared that the current subsection of the relevant Criminal Code violated the right to life in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is one thing for us to stand in this House and talk about this subject. It is another thing to imagine oneself being on the scene either as a peace officer or as the master of a vessel in a situation that requires the person to do something for which very few rule books are written.

I am not coming down on one side or the other but I want to bring to members' attention and to remind the House that it is very necessary and important to these people who are pursuing their difficult duties in a time of crisis to have a framework in which they can operate that not only provides protection in the situation for them but as well for the other party involved. In the case of the proposed legislation for a police officer, I have read it very carefully and I understand this is a modernized version of

the Criminal Code which dictates the clear national standard on the use of force which is proportionate. I can assure members that as a philosophy my byword is co-operation instead of confrontation. However, when confrontation does occur then use that force which is proportional to the force required to achieve what it is one wants to achieve.

I suppose it is the antithesis of trying to kill a flea with a sledge hammer. One does not want to use too much force, otherwise one really prostitutes that force. One makes use of force that is not appropriate. In our society today with the crime rates the way they are and with the sometimes apparent disregard for our justice system, it is very important that these measures be discussed in the highest court in the land, the House of Commons.

This bill does allow the use of deadly force by a peace officer or anybody lawfully assisting the officer. The situations are clear. The first is when the suspect poses a threat of serious harm or death and the suspect flees in order to escape arrest and when no other less violent means exist to prevent escape. If a peace office could chase a fleeing criminal and could wrestle him to the ground with a football tackle or would be able to use some other kind of appropriately lesser force than deadly force, then the police officer or the person assisting the police officer would be expected to do precisely that. This is the intent of the legislation as it is amended and clarified.

The bill also does something else of personal and political interest to me. It includes an amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to provide the authority for masters of vessels acting in their capacity to use disabling force against a fleeing foreign fishing vessel in order to arrest the master or other person in command of that vessel. My clarification right off the bat is that this is for a foreign fishing vessel and it will not be used against Canadian vessels.

I have heard three speakers talk about the necessity for Canada, which is a great trading nation with the largest coastline in the world to have some pretty clear legislation on how we go about protecting the coast literal, or those resources that are available to those Canadians who depend on the sea and the coastline for their living.

The act has not been as clear perhaps as those of us who have used it in the past and for those who would want to use it in the future would like it to be. At the outset I want to say that this rule applies in the case of a foreign fishing vessel that is to be arrested. I will say peripherally that the requirement on the high seas is not as clear as I have heard it discussed in the House. International maritime law is not determined in the way that civil or criminal law is. It is determined by precedent. Certainly there are precedents for arresting foreign vessels on the high seas.

I do not have the exact wording with me right now but I do know that recently at a United Nations conference the right of a literal country, or the country that has the coastline adjacent to the high seas, was discussed. It has a right, a duty and a responsibility on the high seas with respect to a straddling stock. The recognition of a straddling stock would certainly apply to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks as described by my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, and does apply in this case. It is not as cut and dried as other members would have us believe. I do not want to get into a debate concerning the nose and tail of the bank at this time but clearly this could be a follow-up discussion at a later date.

I want to discuss that aspect of the legislation which permits the master of a vessel under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act the action that hopefully will be legislated. The legislation says what can be done and when and under which circumstances it can be done. The government will, at a later date, following the passage of the bill, determine and put together regulations that will decide how it can be done.

In the case of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the amendment that is being proposed at second reading of this bill, the protection officer is justified in using disabling force under three circumstances. The first one is if the protection officer is proceeding lawfully to arrest a vessel, including the person in command of that vessel, if that circumstance also involves the master or the other persons involved taking flight to avoid arrest. Taking flight on the sea does not mean sprouting wings and flying, it means cranking up the engine room to maximum revolutions and trying to escape the chasing vessel. The third condition is that the protection officer has reasonable grounds to believe that force is necessary for the purpose of arresting the master or other persons.

When I talk about the use of force among certain groups, they immediately think that we are going to bring out all the warships, mount a broadside and sink everything in sight. That is anything but the intention. Force is not used that way. I talked earlier about protecting force and to use only the minimum that is necessary.

I recall in July 1985 when the Canadian navy arrested two Spanish fishing vessels. We did not go around shooting them up and Ramboing them, basically we used a loud speaker system and said: "You are under arrest and if you don't stop we are going to have to consider escalatory measures". Without going into the details, the finale of the exercise was that the two Spanish vessels had armed boarding parties put aboard them from the warship involved, HMCS Athabaskan I believe it was. These ships relented, succumbed to the arrest and were towed back to a Canadian port. The masters were subsequently

charged. This is an example where the use of force involved a loud hailer, a few threatening manoeuvres I suppose is a good way to put it, the stopping of the vessel and the sending across by boat of two armed boarding parties.

All kinds of things are done to show force, but force that is proportionate to get the vessel to stop and arrested and taken back to port so it can be properly charged. I agree on the high seas it is going to be much more difficult and I would not expect people to go and do that tomorrow.

I want to tell the House that when this government was elected on October 25, 103 vessels were on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and 72 of them were fishing. Today there are 39 that are engaged in any sort of credible fishing endeavour. There may be 70-odd, I did not get the count for the day. But the point I am making-and please do not hold me to numbers-is that the numbers have decreased significantly. That has, in my opinion and in the opinion of others, been the direct result of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Prime Minister making it very clear that we do not intend to stand for foreign overfishing, where foreign fishing vessels from other nations plunder our stocks, either by using small mesh size, by disregarding quotas, giving themselves great quotas, literally vacuuming up the ocean of a stock that Newfoundlanders and Atlantic Canadians and Quebecers cannot catch because of the rules that we have imposed on ourselves, to say nothing of the fact that there are no fish to catch anyway. If we have to stand on guard quietly and watch our fish disappear under some rubric that we are not really allowed to go outside the 200-mile limit, this government is not going to stand for it.

The rules we are discussing are intended to apply within our jurisdiction. The parliamentary secretary has made that clear. However, these are rules that can be developed. After all, in my lifetime we have gone from a 3-mile territorial sea because that was the range of a cannon-ball. We went out to 12 miles because that was the range of high definition radar for an average size vessel in an average sea state. We are now out to 200 miles because that is where the resources are and we have technical detection devices and aircraft that can tell us what is in the 200 miles. I do not expect to live the rest of my life with a 200-mile limit. I have gone from 3 miles to 200 miles so I can assume, in the interest of avant-garde international law, we may well go beyond the 200-mile limit.

I want tell members how we can use this kind of force. We have our ship at sea and we are involved with a foreign fishing vessel that is fishing in an area where it is not supposed to be. We are told that this vessel is to be arrested. The first thing we do is make it clear to the vessel that it is under arrest. We go through all kinds of pain. We hoist international codes. We use our radio, flashing lights and, if we have speed advantage over that particular vessel, we do circles around it. We basically stand on our nautical head to do everything we can to make sure that vessel understands it is under arrest.

If the vessel proceeds and ignores the order, we have to make it clear to the vessel that we must now ratchet up our force. Without going through all the measures, I suppose at some point a shot would be fired in the general direction of the vessel and eventually across the bow of the vessel. In an ultra necessary step, where force is absolutely necessary and where hours and hours have elapsed, at some point the captain of the arresting vessel has to make it clear to the vessel on which force now has to be used, a disabling force after hours of negotiation: "We are now going to disable your rudder so get your people out of the stern of the vessel and we will give you an hour. Let me know when they are out". The captain may not hear from the vessel.

At some point we may have to fire a shot into the stern of the vessel to disable it. It is terrible stuff but necessary, that force which is necessary to disable the vessel to allow the arrest to be carried out. Hopefully that should be enough under regular circumstances to allow an armed party to be put aboard that vessel, a tow to be put together and the vessel to be towed back to a Canadian port where the master would be charged and duly put through the process.

The importance of this legislation in allowing regulations to be developed by the government, to make it more clear and to buttress the determination of the government to take charge of foreign overfishing I cannot reinforce enough. I believe it is safe to say that this kind of legislation not only clarifies section 7 of the charter and responds to the Ontario court ruling which made some form of legislation necessary-and I am delighted to see it is already in our mandate-but it makes the change to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act in such a manner that the rules and the intent of the government to masters of vessels involved in arresting foreign vessels that are overfishing are very clear, unequivocal and concise.

I commend the Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary for putting forward this legislation at such an early date. I commend all members of the House because the presentations I heard seem to indicate an understanding of the intent of the regulation. I was delighted there were indications on both sides of a good understanding of what was involved in the necessity to improve the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Certainly I saw a general predisposition on the part of all members to move forward with second reading to get the bill into committee so that we could have a good look at it there.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the House for the attention accorded me.

[supply, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have the perspective of the comment made by my colleague from Louis-Hébert and that of my colleague from Don Valley West.

I speak from a national defence perspective. We have to recognize more clearly today that national security means more than the traditional sense of defence of a physical perimeter. It means a lot of things. Among those things it means co-operation. The concept of security today, particularly in the post cold war period, goes far beyond the question of what was traditionally known as the military balance.

It is about politics, it is about economics and it is about human rights and the environment. Those thoughts are sometimes slow to be inflicted on the thoughts of National Defence. I am no avant-garde but I think it is important that we think of CIDA in that perspective.

It is clear that the individual welfare of ordinary Canadians is now affected by global factors, particularly since we are very much a trading nation made up of multinational facets from other countries and that the individual Canadian is affected by global factors that are far beyond any single nation.

Our contribution to CIDA, while it may not look particularly helpful to any individual in an election, in the overall perspective of national security and the well-being of Canada could be a very significant and effective tool. Could the member comment on that?

[Supply, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few things very briefly.

First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for St. Albert on his excellent presentation. I will be somewhat less warm in my congratulatory note in a few moments but I certainly welcome this.

As a member of Parliament, I believe the Canadian public is quite happy to see this kind of debate go on in the House. I for one am very interested and enthusiastic to take part in it.

I want to pay respect to my hon. colleague from Ottawa-Vanier who for a few years did an outstanding job in chairing the

public accounts committee. I had the fortune to sit in on some of the meetings that he chaired on issues that were pertinent to my riding, particularly unemployment insurance and training programs.

I have to congratulate him for his enthusiasm and determination in pursuing the kind of issues that we see today. I think the House should be grateful for the kind of activity that he and his committee were responsible for.

I want to clarify a point. I note the member for St. Albert spoke about the necessity to clarify legislation in support of the northern cod adjustment and recovery program. I do not have any argument with that. We do need to have the proper legislation and as a parliamentarian I would not argue with it. However I want to make it clear that this in no way should impede the discussions now taking place on a follow on recovery program for those people in dire need because of the total extinction of their cod stocks.

There are numerous committees in my riding. These people are not just sitting back expecting money to be given to them. There are 40 "Improving your Odds" committees in my riding. Anywhere from 20 to 40 fisherpersons and plant workers are studying among other things what can be done to improve their communities. Some will be on NCARP and others will not.

I want to make it clear that apart from the need for legislation there will be a necessity to accept that the discussion for a follow on program beyond May 15 should not in any way be impeded by the need for the House to clarify the legislation.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the issue at hand involves the way the government purchases removal services for removal and related services for government employees. We are debating it because a claim has been made by the hon. member for Waterloo that the government thwarted a competitive plan to save taxpayers' money.

Let us review some of the background. As the Minister of National Defence stated in the House on January 21, the former government received six bids to take over the management of

government moves. Of the six, only one was compliant and cost several million dollars more than the government option. The remaining five bids were non-compliant.

Only 10 days before the election, former ministers in the Conservative government directed two pilot projects without authorization, one with a firm whose costs were millions more than the governments and the other with a company whose bid was found to be non-compliant. In other words, this non-compliant company went through normal government procedures to get this business but was unsuccessful. Nevertheless just over one week before the election, Conservative ministers awarded this unsuccessful bidder a pilot project. This government immediately cancelled the authority to conduct the pilot project.

The government is committed to ensuring that the taxpayers of Canada get the greatest value for their dollar and we are continuing to examine all options that are available to save money.

One question that comes up is: Are carriers blocked from bidding? No, they are not. Potential bidders must meet certain criteria in order to qualify. The requirement for the fiscal year 1994-95 will call for local representation in at least seven provinces covering 55 per cent of the interdepartmental committee business to meet departmental location requirements. That is an improvement over the current requirement of 85 per cent in all provinces. This reduction in representation was done to further encourage competition.

The government is committed to seeking ways to save taxpayers' money. The minister understands the hon. member's concern and is devoting every attention to ensuring the best use of limited resources.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has discussed this issue at length in the House. We have been open and forthcoming about the incident. There is no mystery and there is no doubt.

As the minister stated, a signal from an emergency locator transmitter, ELT, was detected on January 21 by a Hercules aircraft during a routine flight. Canadian forces policy dictates that search and rescue, SAR activity, be initiated whenever an ELT transmitter emission is detected because such emissions can indicate the possibility of danger to human life or property.

A Labrador helicopter was dispatched to assist the Hercules in searching for a possible distress situation. From the air members of the SAR team were able to identify the general area. The helicopter then set down in the area and crew members set out to further localize the source with hand held equipment.

Before the source of the signal could be identified, crew members were approached by an individual. He stated that shots had been fired at the aircraft and that they should leave the area. Comments were advisory and did not convey any threat. The air crew did not hear any shots being fired nor did they detect the presence of weapons. Let me reiterate that there is no physical evidence that shots were fired at the SAR helicopter and reports that bullet holes were found in the helicopter are absolutely false.

There were never any reports of an aircraft going down in the area, nor was there any visible evidence of a possible distress situation. With this in mind the air crew was correct in its decision to avoid the unnecessary endangerment of personnel by leaving the area. The ELT stopped transmitting the following day.

Chief Peltier and the Minister of National Defence have discussed this issue to their mutual satisfaction. There is no dispute over what is Canadian airspace and there is no dispute that the Canadian forces will continue to use airspace in the conduct of legitimate defence and search and rescue activities.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. It is our intention on this side of the House to split our time into 10 minute speeches with five minute question and answer segments because there are so many speakers who want to get on. It is my humble suggestion and I regret I have not had time to consult with the other side of the House. We know where the Reform is coming from.

I would suggest that if there is agreement, consideration be given for all sides of the House to go immediately to 10 and 5 which would allow considerable discussion and more speakers who feel quite strongly on both sides of this issue and that would be facilitated.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would recommend because of the number of speakers that if the House agrees, we should start now with 10-minute speeches.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is no objection from the government side and I strongly recommend it.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Looking at the time, we had agreed to go until 10 o'clock. My assessment is that we are progressing very well. Certainly the level of debate is excellent even at this time of the evening. Quite a few other speakers would like to go on the record on this important subject.

I wonder if I could beg the indulgence of the House to sit until midnight on the condition that there be 10-minute speeches and no questions and comments? Could I seek unanimous agreement from the House on that please?