Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (force), tabled for first reading on February 4, 1994.
I would like to start by emphasizing the need for providing a framework for the use of force, as indicated in the Criminal Code. There are two concepts in clause 1 of this bill that seem rather ambiguous.
The first concept with which we have a problem is that of reasonable grounds. What are reasonable grounds? Do they depend on an individual's personal judgment? Good question.
Two recent incidences are a good illustration of what I mean, and I am thinking of the Richard Barnabé case, where the police may have acted on what it felt were reasonable grounds, in a situation that did not necessarily warrant such action, and the case of three residents of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon who were accused of illegal fishing in Canadian waters, a case which fortunately had no serious consequences. The interpretation of reasonable grounds is therefore rather puzzling.
The second concept we would like to see clarified, as it applies to the fisheries situation, is the interpretation of necessary force. Again, the individual's personal judgment is supposed to guide him in the use of force to the extent that he judges necessary. However, a stressful situation may affect one's judgment.
As Hegel wrote when considering the principles of the philosophy of law, what is reasonable is real and what is real is reasonable. Hence this request for clarification of the concepts of reasonable grounds and necessary force.
We in the Bloc Quebecois would also appreciate some explanation of the use of the term "désemparé" in the bill itself. The Petit Larousse illustré 1994 gives the following definition of the term, as it applies to the fisheries: "Qui ne peut plus manoeuvrer, par suite d'avaries". ["The state of being disabled, of being unable to manoeuvre, as a result of damage."] This definition of the term as used in Bill C-8 would seem incomplete in the case of human lives.
The importance of the precision takes a whole new meaning when you consider that the same clause says: "-intended or... likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm-" In the Bloc Quebecois we believe that human lives should never be endangered by the decision of a single individual responsible for enforcing the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. We accept the principle of the use of force, but we must adapt it to the field of fisheries.
Our amendment is intended to limit the use of force, in order to avoid any dangerous situation that could lead to an escalation of violence.
The wording of our amendment bears some resemblance with a recommendation of a report from the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veteran Affairs, chaired by the Hon. Arnold Malone, and tabled in November 1990.
The recommendation said, and I quote, "-that research be conducted as a high priority into methods of stopping unco-operative boats on the high seas without endangering human life". What happened to that recommendation already four years old?
Second, I would like to stress the importance of attacking at the source the problem of poaching. But we must face the fact that we will not be able to do it alone, without the help of other countries. Negotiation efforts must be pursued with the international community.
If fishing outside the 200-mile limit hinders reproduction of fish stocks, the amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act will not solve the problem. Canada cannot legislate over international areas. Accordingly, negotiation remains the only possible avenue, hence the necessity of involving the Department of External Affairs.
Therefore, the Bloc considers that the solution is to be found primarily in negotiated multilateral agreements providing for compliance measures by various interested parties. The Concordia incident proves that that kind of situation cannot be solved by the use of force but by precise and clear agreements between various interested parties.
It should be recalled that in that precise case, there was no agreement in force between two sovereign countries, namely Canada and the United States. The ridiculously timid penalty given the master and owner of the Concordia shows the regulations' flaws. The fact is that Canada has to show clearly that it is determined to defend vigorously its sovereignty over Canadian waters. Now, as far as the concept of sovereignty is concerned, members from the Bloc Quebecois could most likely advise the Canadian government on the definition of that concept, even if it deals with Canadian waters, because we have some experience in that area.
Still, if only multilateral agreements had to be negotiated, we could possibly find a solution to the problem in a very short period of time. But no, once more we are confronted with a problem of overlapping-we are sorry if we always seem to come back to that issue but that is part of the problem-not federal-provincial overlapping but, as I mentioned in my first speech on environment, overlapping within the federal government itself. As a matter of fact, three departments could not agree on a single solution regarding the environment.
As for fisheries, and in particular in the present bill, four departments are trying to find a solution to a single problem which is, I admit, a big one.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and, in this instance, the Department of Justice are all working to find a solution to the problem.
This conflict between the various federal bodies goes back a long way. In fact, the same aforementioned report about maritime sovereignty, drafted under the chairmanship of the Hon. Arnold Malone and tabled in 1990, made this recommendation: "The Committee recommends that the government institute a program of regularly exercising interdepartmental coordination procedures, particularly for emergency situations, with a view to identifying problems and reducing necessary consultation time. Such exercises should include all responsible individuals and their alternates". This way, there would be no seven and a half hour delay before an emergency decision could be taken, as was the case in the Concordia incident.
Any amendment would be useless if the various federal departments are not even able to co-ordinate their action, so this is a critical factor.
In conclusion, we concur with the bill provided the amendment suggested by the Bloc is agreed to. I say again that I believe in a strict control regarding the use of force, as prescribed in the Criminal Code.