House of Commons Hansard #21 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was arrest.

Topics

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the openmindedness shown by the hon. member, who said he would carefully consider the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, when the bill is referred to the Standing Committee.

However, I would like to cast some new light on an issue which is important, considering the amendments we will be moving. Even though we want to protect our territorial waters from overfishing, we cannot prevent our stocks from leaving our territorial waters. If we were to legislate on that, we would soon run out of aquariums to detain the fish which would have ignored our legislation and our territorial limits.

Moreover, outside of our territorial waters, we have no authority whatsoever to stop foreign vessels from fishing. And God knows those vessels come from all over the world! Since we cannot legislate on fish migration, all countries should agree to legislate globally on fishery resource management, because the fish stocks do not belong to one particular country. They do not belong to Canada nor to Quebec. They belong to the sea. And the sea, outside our territorial waters, belongs to everyone. This is why it is so important to pay special attention to the amendments we will put forward in the hope of seeing Canada and Quebec show some leadership in bringing the countries together to develop a better management strategy for this resource which belongs to everyone.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Russell MacLellan Liberal Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. We cannot at this point deal with problems outside the Canadian jurisdiction.

I would like to make one point that I think is very important. When Canada extended its boundaries to the 200 mile limit we were able to take in all of the Grand Banks off the east coast of Canada, particularly the east coast of Newfoundland, except for two little parts which we call the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

However, because of the nature of the terrain of the Grand Banks the fish conjugate on the Grand Banks. Once one goes past the Grand Banks into deeper water it is a different situation altogether.

We would like to assure that when fish leave the major part of the Grand Banks, which is in Canadian waters, and go to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, some of them will gradually come back.

What is happening is that foreign vessels are on the nose and tail outside Canadian waters in great numbers. Very few of the fish that go out there are coming back. The fish that go out there do not come back into Canadian waters. We feel we are losing a great deal of our fisheries resource.

The member for Gaspé said that we should not tell other countries what kind of fish they should catch. If France wants to catch a small cod then it should be able to do that. However, it is not that simple. The fact is that if one catches a small cod then that cod does not grow up to be a big cod.

Where does one stop on small cod? If one can catch small cod then why can one not catch all the small cod that go outside the Canadian jurisdiction? It really is a very serious question. There have to be rules and regulations on the catching of small and juvenile fish.

We have to try to negotiate.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is in Brussels right now, negotiating with other countries to try to reach an agreement on the section concerning the fisheries.

If the minister is not successful then he will be developing other means of discussing this. He has stated to the House and to the country that this is a very serious question and he wants to find a resolution to it one way or the other. Negotiation is the preference.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Fred Mifflin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs

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.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might seek unanimous consent of the House at this stage to revert to presentation of reports by committees. I have a very brief report from the procedure and House affairs committee that I would like to present to the House and have it concurred in.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The House has heard the suggestion of the member. Is there unanimous consent to revert to the earlier period?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The Committee recommends that the name of Mr. Hopkins be substituted for the name of Mr. Gagliano on the list of members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. That completes the report and I will move for its concurrence in a few minutes.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

I move that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Reform

Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech which I found to be quite entertaining. At one point he was talking about following the offending vessel for hours and hours. I had the vision of being a third of the way across the Atlantic before the negotiations were finally over and we were going to get tough on this vessel that had broken the rules. Then I had the vision in which we said to the people: "Everybody out of the stern because we are going to shoot you in the rudder".

I wondered what happens if the ship turns the other way? Do we then tell them: "We are going to shoot you in the bow so everybody run to the stern?" What if the people on board do not obey the rules that we ask them to obey? Does the member really think he is making practical suggestions?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Fred Mifflin Liberal Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL

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 CodeGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

I would like to add a brief comment to what was said by the two previous speakers. Since I am not a lawyer, I have to admit that the parliamentary secretary's remarks helped me understand a little better the amendments proposed by the government.

I also appreciate the fact that the government has taken note of the amendment I tried to propose today. I hope it will consider our position that the use of excessive force does not seem appropriate for the type of offense that could be committed by illegal fishermen.

I am a bit concerned about the remarks of the last speaker who talked about the impact of overfishing outside the 200 mile limit, on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. It scares me a little because I had said in my speech this morning that I wanted to be sure that the government would not use this legislation to lay the blame for the collapse of the Canadian fishing industry on foreign countries.

I said it in my speech and I will repeat it, Canadians must examine their own fishing habits, they have to recognize the fact that they are part of the problem. As I mentioned this morning, I would like to remind hon. members that according to NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, and its member states, including Canada as well as France, Denmark and the USSR, only 3 to 5 per cent of the Canadian biomass, of the Northern cod, flows through the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, that is through international waters.

In this regard, I would like to be sure that we will not provoke foreigners because we have a difference of opinion with them, and that is what I fear. The last time someone believed he was right, he triggered off a series of actions he might have regretted afterwards. This example might be far-fetched, but this is to tell you how much I fear that we will attack foreigners because we believe we are right. I am, of course, referring to Saddam Hussein. When he indicated that he wanted to enter into Kuwait to do what he did, I did not agree, but he had a belief.

I would not like us to take reprisals against foreigners because we thought we were right. We can get our message across without resorting to that kind of force. I understand from the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary that we are going in the right direction.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Fred Mifflin Liberal Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point the hon. member has made. I am a little worried about the comparison that he made. I presume it was for the purpose of illustration. I appreciate the point he is making. I am not going to try to make any political hay out of it.

I would say in all seriousness that if there is a point we reach as a nation at which the livelihood of a large section of the nation is decimated by action over which we have control, I would certainly not have respect for a nation that would allow its people to be plundered and to take no action other than to give speeches at diplomatic tables. I for one do not intend to stand for that and neither does my government.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will give a short answer. If ever there is an escalation in the use of force in this matter-and that is not how I understood the parliamentary secretary's remarks-I hope that at that time we can investigate or hold an emergency debate if required. But I would really like to hear Canadian biologists come and tell us what the actual impact of the so-called overfishing is. Certain candidates have based their electoral campaign on this, but I have never heard a biologist prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Fred Mifflin Liberal Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL

Mr. Speaker, I tell the hon. member that we have had three emergency debates in the House on the subject. He would be aware that before any such action was contemplated there would be yet a further review of what all the biologists have told us already.

As a member from an area that is interested in and very concerned about the same issue I am sure he too is following the activities of such organizations as the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. It has been fairly clear in the advice it has given to the department, the government and other organizations so constructed and so intentioned.

The point the hon. member is making is a valid one that I am sure would be taken into consideration. This is not an irresponsible government but a government concerned about its people.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The period provided for questions and comments has now expired.

Is the House ready for the question?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The late show will have to wait for 10 or 15 minutes, until 6.30 p.m. Is there unanimous consent to suspend the House until 6.30 p.m.?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.12 p.m.)

The House resumed at 6.30 p.m.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Warren Allmand Liberal Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC

Mr. Speaker, in the recent speech from the throne the new Liberal government promised to restore the court challenges program which had been cancelled by the previous Conservative government in 1992.

The court challenges program was originally established by the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau in 1978 and it was expanded in 1982. Its purpose was to assure that Canadians could enforce their constitutional rights before the courts.

In 1981 we established a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guaranteed certain basic rights to all Canadians, rights such as fundamental freedoms, equality rights, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights and language rights.

It is one thing to have these rights guaranteed in the Constitution, but it is another thing to enforce these rights in court, especially against big government or big business. One needs the funds to hire lawyers over a long period of time, very often in appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Without the funds to enforce your rights in court, these rights become meaningless. That is why a Liberal government established the court challenges program: to provide funds to individuals and groups who had important constitutional rights to enforce, especially where a precedent was involved.

During the life of the program the most important cases dealt with language rights and equality rights. In my constituency in particular there is great concern over the erosion of language rights. On several occasions there were important court actions taken against Quebec Bills 101 and 178 which were successful in knocking out repressive sections of those laws. There were similar actions in other provinces by francophones. The battle has not ended. There are still sections of those and other laws which must be challenged and citizens need help from the government to do that.

I would like to know today when the government will bring back the court challenges program as promised in the speech from the throne. I want a clear commitment that it will cover court challenges to legislation which restricts or rescinds language rights.