Debates of Sept. 28th, 1995

Cultural Property Export And Import Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until Monday at 6 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and on the amendment.

Oceans Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The House will recall the member for Calgary North had not finished her speech. She is not prepared to go ahead at this time so I will recognize the member for Vancouver Quadra.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to resume the debate on Bill C-98, the oceans act.

I had the opportunity to hear the closing minutes of the debate the other day on this bill. It was late in the evening; one was scattering twilight ashes so perhaps there were some misconceptions that might not have been formed at an earlier time of day.

Allow me to correct them by saying what this bill is not. It is certainly not an attempt to rewrite the Constitution Act, to rewrite the Constitution or to change the balance of federal-provincial powers as established under the Constitution Act and under the extensive jurisprudence developed on that act over the last 128 years.

It is a bill with a more modest purpose, although one of great value to the Canadian public and great value certainly to those who have grown up since the last war. It is a compendium, a collection in convenient form of Canada's position on the law of the sea.

International law is made in various ways. The great bulk of it has been made much as the common law of Canada has been made: by custom, practice which by its reasonableness and its acceptance becomes concretized as a rule of custom.

Other parts of the international law of the sea have been made by jurisprudence, by the decisions of the courts of which the International Court of Justice has been a leader, although sometimes national courts spill over. Still further change has been made by legislation, by treaties.

What is not perhaps generally understood is that until 1945 virtually all of the projections of Canada's power in international law of the sea and of the world community's position on the international law of the sea did not exist.

Until 1945 the law of the sea was a law of movement as my good friend, the great French scholar, René-Jean Dupuy of the Collège de France has described it, a law of movement which was concerned essentially in establishing the rights of all parties that passed freely to and fro on the seas, the concept of the high seas and

the concept of a very limited national, territorial sea abridging those limits.

That was the regime which lasted for more than 300 years. It was developed originally as a debate between two great scholars, and the modern law of the sea, as the 300-year old law was then called. It was established by the brilliant Dutch jurist, Grotius, who in essence said the high seas belong to everybody. Everybody has the right of passage to and fro. The national, territorial sea is limited and it is a three-mile sea, no more.

This was itself an heretical doctrine because it overthrew an earlier doctrine established by Spanish and Portuguese jurists and ratified by a pope with a decree in 1494 that appropriated the oceans and divided them between Spain and Portugal. Grotius overthrew this. He was resisted by some sceptical people, including the great English jurist, Selden, but his views prevail largely because they made sense in the world community as it was developing, particularly in the aftermath of the Thirty Years War. But even before the signs were apparent. When he was writing, it was quite clear that the modern state founded on the rules of commerce must have freedom of access to and fro on the seas.

Those were the theories that he presented. Since they corresponded to the needs of the world community they were widely accepted and became the general rules, subject only to very minor exceptions for some special Scandinavian rules and the like and some exceptions that were made by special bilateral treaties very recently. In fact the changes are largely in response to illegal Canadian activities, treaties governing rumrunning and attention of vessels outside the three-mile territorial sea of the United States. These were directed against Canadian smugglers in the 1920s and were basically British-U.S. treaties.

What this act does, and I think it is its primary purpose, is to give a compendium, give a résumé of the elements in the modern Canadian position of the law of the sea. Our law reflects international law. It is a rule of international law that the general customary rules of international law are part of the common law of Canada. To be operative, treaties as such must be incorporated into our law by legislation. The conventions in the law of the sea up to date, until the most recent one, are directly parts of Canadian law.

This particular act is not directed to the 1982 convention, the so-called third United Nations law of the sea convention, but it achieves essentially the same thing because it recites all those additions to the international law that have become part of Canadian law by various Canadian actions.

I should add here that a treaty, even though unratified by a country, may, according to the best jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, become binding upon a non-signatory, non-ratifying country simply because it is evidence of a general rule of international law binding on all states. This flows from a celebrated dictum of the late president of the world court, Judge Lachs, and it is now generally accepted.

If we look at this legislation we do get for the first time a complete and comprehensive recitation of the segments of the Canadian law of the sea: the territorial sea of course, but the extension of the territorial sea from three marine miles to twelve; a ruling on the contiguous zone, which is itself an extension into general treaty law and then into general customary law of those special American treaties that were designed to cover the rum runners, the smugglers, and not much more. The contiguous zone goes well beyond that today.

Something that was a revolutionary doctrine when it was proclaimed by President Truman for the first time in 1945 is the international law of the continental shelf. President Truman asserted that claim on behalf of the United States defence policy. It was designed, as he said, and there was some evidence for that, to establish a legal basis for early warning systems and the like outside the three-mile territorial sea. But there was also very clearly an economic motive: the development of submarine oil deposits and other mineral resources outside the three-mile limit. So that is the continental shelf.

Then we join forces with another interesting segment to which Canada has very specifically contributed, the establishment of fishing zones. These were originally unilateral assertions by several Latin American states with a poor economy but rich seas in terms of marine fish resources: the unilateral extension to 200 miles of their jurisdiction and enforced against ships owned by Greek shipowners but registered under flags of convenience. It was an heretical doctrine when first asserted, but its reasonableness in a world of diminishing resources was fully recognized and other states adopted this. Canada was one of the leaders in that, firstly by unilateral act and then by a series of bilateral treaties with other countries.

A further and more interesting doctrine is this doctrine of the exclusive economic zone, which now goes 200 miles from our coast. It has been said by the international court that with a slightly different development the exclusive economic zone might have become unnecessary, that the doctrine of the continental shelf could have been capable of further generic extension. But we face the reality today that the international law has developed in separate steps, not necessarily overlapping.

What we have in this bill for the first time is a comprehensive presentation of the Canadian law, the Canadian recognition and application of the international law of the sea in the different ways in which we have done it. It is a bit more comprehensive than the 1982 international treaty. It covers more matters. These are matters that I would say Canada has pioneered.

I go back here to the great dean of the University of British Columbia law school, George Curtis, who was very active in the two great international conferences in 1958 and 1960 that gave rise to the first great international conventions post-war on this subject. I would also add the distinguished Vancouver and Victoria scholar and long-time legal adviser to the Canadian foreign ministry, Alan Beesley, Ambassador Tommy Koh of Singapore, and Judge Aguilar Mawdsley of Venezuela, who is now a judge of the world court. It can be said that they developed the modern law of the sea.

Here we discover something that is distinctively Canadian and of which we can be very proud, because it draws together certain imperatives of Canadian society that are widely recognized, perhaps more than ever in western Canada and on the west coast. That is to say that we view the resources of the sea as something to be protected, and it is not a rule of international law and it should not be the case that people can do anything they like as long it is not specifically prohibited in some act that someone can cite. What is being said here, which was the Canadian position in the extended meetings leading up to the 1982 convention, is that there is today an imperative of conservation, that in a world of diminishing natural resources the common heritage of humankind consists of these natural resources and every state has a duty to investigate, to monitor their utilization, and to protect them.

In its basic conception this is a modest law, but it does comprehensively state what is the Canadian position on the international law of the sea as applied in Canada. It also goes beyond that and carries forward the thrust of the Canadian interest in conservation, which we have pioneered and successfully demonstrated to other countries.

I have a certain interest in this. In recent months I attended, at the invitation of the UN Secretary-General, his conference on the future of international law. It was at the height of the so-called turbot war, which involved our country in a dispute with two other countries. It was a matter of great interest to be greeted by the ambassadors of a number of European countries and to be requested to pass on congratulations to our government for taking a position in terms of conservation of the world's diminishing resources. These people said very frankly: "We cannot be quoted on this. Our government, for reasons of regional solidarity, may take a different position, but something had to be done."

I suppose this really directs attention to the international law-making process. Most of the international law of the sea has been made by unilateral acts of countries. Somebody asserted the principle. Sir Francis Drake and others were the first to challenge, on behalf of Queen Elizabeth I, the Portuguese and Spanish claims to hegemony over the oceans and the appendant lands at the end of the 16th century. However, in terms of the contemporary law of the sea, it is worth reflecting that almost all the customary law results from unilateral acts, which by their reasonableness and the perception that they accord with the trends of history have been considered to be right and proper for the world community.

I think in that respect our actions in the turbot war were right and in conformity with international law. In the House I made that suggestion at the time.

This particular legislation does carry forward the imperative, which has always been part of Canadian post-war thinking and is to be found in the great diplomatic conferences in which we played such a leading part and which were carried on by governments of different political complexions at times but with the same general outlook. While it is true that the international law of the sea has moved from this law of movement, open to everybody, no rulings on property, to a narrower concept of national appropriation of economic resources, those new imperatives resulted from the clear fact that many countries were poor and had no resources and reached out to the fishery and mining resources and the like. Notwithstanding this change, a new drive or a new imperative has been received in international law thinking, and that is the obligation of conservation of scarce natural resources.

If we look at this legislation we will see that it is a modest law. It is perhaps too long. It is true that civil servants in Canada and elsewhere draft laws that are longer and more complex than they need be, but the great truths are there. It is a compendium of the law. We have caught up in our national law with the emerging international law of the sea. In our presentation of that law we are more comprehensive than the most recent 1982 treaty that is at the point of being ratified by Canada.

Also in our law we are providing this obligation of setting up the duty to monitor, supervise, and essentially act like a good citizen. In that we fulfil what civil law countries know in their law as the "droit du bon voisinage", the law of good neighbourliness. The common law is less developed than the civil law, and international law has borrowed largely from the civil law principles. It is in that respect that the law is a very good law and is worth commending to you.

Do not worry about questions of effects on federal-provincial constitutional powers. This law could not change them. They are sufficiently regulated by the Constitution and by the jurisprudence on it. On careful re-reading after hearing some members' questions on that, it is not my conclusion that the law in any way attempts to change that. Look to its larger purpose and accept the fact also that it carries forward the case we successfully made a year ago in the so-called turbot war.

Incidentally, there has never been any doubt in international law that a country's jurisdiction, including its criminal jurisdiction, extends beyond national territory, including national territorial waters. It is a clear principle that acts outside one's territory that impinge on or have effects within the territory are subject to national criminal jurisdiction. In fact, such jurisdiction has been asserted by English courts successfully since the 17th century and is part of the jurisprudence of most countries today.

Therefore, it is my pleasure to commend Bill C-98 to this House as a codification and a progressive development of international law in the best traditions of those Canadian civil servants, politically neutral as they were, who did so much to establish the great international acts I have referred to in my discourse.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-98 and in particular the amendment we have called for. The amendment is to put down this bill and refer the contents of it back to the committee. The reason is because this bill once again shows that this government is just doing window dressing on a number of serious issues.

I am going to speak to Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans. It would be a very welcome bill to help ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea if it were something more than just window dressing.

I will explain what we agree and disagree with in the bill and provide some constructive solutions that we humbly submit the government should pay heed to.

We agree and commend the government in its effort to cost cut by streamlining the coast guard and by enacting the partnership programs which will save the taxpayer money, something we would all welcome. We agree with the intent of the oceans management strategy to co-ordinate the oceans strategy across provincial and federal governments.

However do we need to create another level of bureaucracy to fulfil the oceans management strategy? Should this not be the responsibility of DFO? Why not convene representatives from the provinces and the federal government to develop a concerted strategy that DFO would monitor? Why do we need to create another level of bureaucracy to do it? Why do we need to create another group of people to watch people who watch other people, who watch people watching people do some work? This is "Yes, Minister" at its worst.

[An hon. member]

It is a make work project.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

That is right. The minister truly believes that he is as interested in sustainable development as we all are, but from what I have heard in the House on the issue the facts bear that this is nonsense.

I will tell the House what has been happening on both coasts, particularly the west coast where we are trying to avert the disaster that occurred on the east coast. I have repeatedly warned the minister of the devastating poaching that is taking place on the west coast. We have seen very little being done about it. The proof is in the pudding. All we need to do is look at the catchments that have come back this year in so many different fish species to see the devastation that has been wracked on our west coast fish species. There is a lot of poaching going on. I will give some examples.

In Mill Bay in my riding there was a three-day salmon derby which 300 fishermen attended and caught seven salmon. On Hornby Island just a couple of months ago there was another salmon derby. The third prize winning fish was a dogfish because nobody caught any salmon. That is what is happening in the west coast salmon fishery.

It is affecting groundfish and other species. One could not catch a ling cod if one's life depended on it. Shellfish are being decimated. The abalone fishery was closed in 1989 on the west coast. Yet there is widespread poaching of abalone all over the west coast. Just recently the ex-head of the Vancouver aquarium said that a large population of Asian individuals are pillaging the shellfish off Stanley Park.

I invite the minister and the parliamentary secretary to come to Vancouver Island to see the decimation of the shellfish stocks. A number of Vietnamese individuals on Vancouver Island have been pillaging shellfish all over the island. DFO has been unable to deal with the problem. It is a huge problem as our shellfish stocks are being significantly affected. Furthermore the poachers are taking shellfish out of polluted areas.

Seiners are vacuuming the ocean off Vancouver Island. Since 1957 when the seiners first started catching salmon there has been a reproduceable inverse relationship between the intensity of seine fishing, the numbers of spawners that are coming back and the catchment by sports fishermen.

Just a couple of years ago there was a revenge seine fishery to penalize the Americans, yet we decimated our own fish stocks. That is not sustainable management, but that was the decision made by the ministry.

All salmon species are being decimated. All one has to do is go up the Fraser River to see what is happening. There are nets strung from one end to the other. Aboriginal people are stringing nets across the river and are pillaging and raping the fish stocks. The ministry knows that. It should be coming down on individuals who are hiding behind the aboriginal fish strategy to poach fish. They have been unwilling to do that because it is politically incorrect. I strongly advise the ministry that for all people, aboriginal and

non-aboriginal people, it should have one commercial fishing strategy. It should enforce the laws for all people regardless of who they are.

Fish know no bounds. They do not care who is pillaging them, but there are individuals hiding behind their ethnic origins who are doing it, and because it is not politically expedient the DFO is unable and unwilling to deal with it.

I do not blame the officers because they are hamstrung by mid-level bureaucrats that are hamstringing the minister. Part of the problem is in the bureaucracy. When DFO was reorganized it transferred decision making from hardworking DFO officers in the field to mid-level bureaucrats in Ottawa and Vancouver. The number of DFO officers went down.

The result is that decisions are made a distance away from where the actual poaching is taking place. What we see are decisions that do not actually affect the problems in the fisheries. It has also contributed to the decimation of fish stocks on the west coast.

I actually commend the ministry for increasing the numbers of fisheries officers somewhat, but I bring to its attention that it has also increased the bureaucracy. I give the example of what happened in my riding in Sooke where they closed the only fisheries office and increased the bureaucracy in Victoria.

The result has been greatly increased pressure from poachers within Vancouver Island and poachers coming across the Strait of Juan de Fuca from America. They know full well they cannot fish in their own waters because of the decimation of the stocks. Therefore they come to good old Canada and decimate our stocks. They know they will not be penalized because fisheries officers are unprepared to deal with them.

I bring to the attention of the ministry that the morale of DFO officers is at an all time low because mid-level bureaucrats have hamstrung them. They have made it unable for them to do their job or to acquire the means to do their job. The ministry needs to investigate the loss of morale. It is losing a lot of good people who have historically done a great job in fisheries.

Another aspect is that groundfish are being decimated. We find that trollers are decimating the reefs all over the west coast in an effort to extract whatever fish are there. These delicate reefs are being smashed to pieces.

We need one commercial fishing strategy. We also need to decrease the number of nets in the water. There are simply too many nets right now to make the extraction of species sustainable. We also need to decrease seiner activity and have a release program for adult Chinook salmon, which is possible if the weather is co-operative.

We should try to preserve sports fishing capability, the reason being that sports fishing injects on a per fish basis much more than the commercial fishery, in fact about $37 per fish.

We should enforce the law we have right now. I implore the ministry to enforce the laws we have. It has not been doing it. The poachers are aware of it and taking full advantage of the situation.

There should be commercial fishing strategy for all people. We should not allow poachers to hide behind the aboriginal fishing strategy for their own personal financial gain, at the expense of all honest fishermen from all walks of life.

We need to push for an extension of our jurisdiction beyond our 200-mile zone. There is a doughnut in the Pacific Ocean where immature salmon go to fatten up. International poachers are pillaging that doughnut of fish which normally come back to us. The issue was investigated years ago. For a number of reasons the investigation was quashed internally. We need to try to enforce through international agreement the preservation of that area so we can ensure that a reasonable number of fish will come back to us.

We also have to deal with the dumping of toxins that is occurring not only in our country but in others because they wind up in our ecosystem. I remind everyone of who is at the pinnacle of that ecosystem. The number one predator is man. This is what happens. Toxins are accumulated in an individual. The higher up one is in the predatory system, the more the toxins become concentrated and the greater chance they have of becoming carcinogenic and teratogenic.

I strongly advise the minister to work with science research and development in the Department of the Environment rather than have the department work in isolation. There are many very talented and skilled scientists in the Ministry of the Environment who are doing a lot of incredible work on the issue of sustainable development with respect to the oceans. I suggest they tap into that resource for the benefit of the fishery.

I also suggest co-operative effort between other ministries and a leadership role for DFO. I know it can play this role because it has many very talented people. We are looking for somebody to take a leadership role among the ministries and we have it within our capabilities.

The minister claims, as I have said before, that he is very much in favour of sustainable management of our resources. Yet in British Columbia he is closing down hatcheries left, right and centre. They closed the hatchery down in Sooke. If we did not have those hatcheries we would not have a fishery. That is the cold hard reality. If we do not have them the number of spawners coming back are negligible.

I propose the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should start up a sustainable hatchery in my riding near Sooke. The start-up costs are $1 million with a quarter million dollars per year. It could be self-financing in four years. I ask him to look at the proposal. It could inject over $90 million into Vancouver Island. Furthermore it would be self-financing. We just need some co-operation from the ministry to do it.

I would also like to look at the area of aquaculture. We were a leader in aquaculture a few years ago. However, because of mismanagement and a lack of support from governments, Chile has now taken over from us in the aquaculture industry. We as a country can play a leadership role internationally in aquaculture.

Some very good work is being done in a vet college on Prince Edward Island and at the University of Prince Edward Island on research in aquaculture that could enable Canada to garner a niche in aquaculture and become a leader in the area. The economic spinoff benefits for the west coast would be huge.

I hope the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will look into the matter and work in co-operation with the University of Prince Edward Island, and other universities that are similarly doing other exciting work, for the benefit of the people of the area and for the benefit of the resource.

The minister also claimed that he was interested in looking at protecting spawning sites. I completely agree. Yet we do not have adequate data on the spawning sites as they exist. We need to acquire them.

There is another aspect. There are other fisheries involving sea cucumbers, sea urchins and geoducks for which there is an open fishery. That would be absolutely fine except for the fact that we have absolutely no idea what stocks there are in these areas. We need to establish what the stocks are before we move ahead and cull a sustainable number of these species, to maintain a sustainable resource in these other shellfish species for the future.

Bill C-98 has a lot of good intentions. Unfortunately it falls far short of what it was meant to be. I hope the ministry can ask for the opinions of people in the areas that are being affected by the fishery. I hope and pray we will not have an east coast disaster on the west coast. As we stand here now, poaching is widespread through virtually every species we can imagine. The only people who are going to be hurt are future Canadians.

I would implore the minister once again to enforce the law for all people regardless of who they happen to be. It is not politically incorrect to enforce the law because the people who are poaching are of an immigrant population or are aboriginal people. It does not serve those people within those groups or any other group who are honest individuals within the industry and are working within the legal framework of that industry to have any group of people within their population poaching the fish and other fish species.

We need a sustainable fishery in this country. We can have a sustainable fishery in this country but we can only have it if the Department of Fisheries and Oceans shows the leadership it is obligated to show. I and my colleagues in the Reform Party would be more than happy to help the government to work toward that end. It just takes the political will, strength and courage to do that.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I would like to commend him on some interesting ideas he has put forward. I took notes on many of his concerns.

He spent some time on ensuring that enforcement and law and order is very important. The Reform Party often puts forward that if there are people illegally fishing or poaching we should take action. He would know that the Reform member for Delta was charged with illegally fishing and that whenever anyone does not abide by the law they will be charged as the member was under the DFO act.

The member also talked about enforcement. He knows that one of the things we have accomplished this year is we were able to get an increase in the budget for enforcement. This is not an easy thing to do these days when there are tremendous budget cuts. As the Reform Party often brings forward we should be cutting the deficit and cutting our costs but this is one area where people such as the hon. member and others have told us that we need more enforcement. Therefore more enforcement has been added on the west coast. It is the one area where there has been a budget increase.

The hon. member talked about the sports fishery. He knows that the sports fishery is very important from a tourism point of view in developing that whole industry. Would he and his party designate the chinook and coho as an exclusive sports fishery? I am interested to know his view on that topic and what his position would be.

I also would like to hear his view on our new aquaculture strategy. I wonder whether he feels that is the right direction and whether he agrees with our new aquaculture strategy which was just brought in by the minister. We think aquaculture is very important. I would appreciate it if the hon. member could respond to those questions.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to preface my remarks by bringing forth a couple of the hon. member's concerns. My colleague did indeed put his nets into the water. Quite bluntly, the reason he put his nets into the water was to show that the law was not being enforced equally between aboriginals and non-aboriginals. I cannot comment on a situation that is going to be before the courts but the motivation was

frustration. The facts are that the laws are not and were not being applied equally to both aboriginals and non-aboriginals.

I just draw from a safety point of view the poaching I mentioned earlier along the Fraser River where aboriginal people were extending their nets right across the river and taking as much as they could possibly take. This was done in front of DFO officers. The DFO officers would not go in there because they were afraid of being shot and killed. I do not blame them but that is the reality under which we live.

I would like to also ask if the taxes that are going to be applied to catchment also apply to aboriginal and non-aboriginal commercial fishermen. Do they also apply to commercial fishermen under the AFS? At some time in the future I would like to know the answer to that.

The hon. member asked me about the chinook and coho fisheries. We know the numbers of both are declining quite dramatically and I would put the ball back in his court. Our first concern is to ensure we have adequate chinook and coho coming back into our waters as spawners. That is not happening right now. If we enable the hatcheries to occur, such as the one I mentioned which can be sustainable, then in time when we get a sufficient number of chinook and coho back, yes we could have a commercial fishery in that.

The overriding concern we must have is to ensure that our chinook and coho and every other species are going to have sufficient sustainable numbers in our waters so that this resource can be increased over time. When it gets to a level that is considered to be sustainable, I am sure the ministry will have enough data to show how many fish can be taken off in a sustainable fashion in a commercial way.

The aquaculture suggestions I mentioned to the hon. member are suggestions I have not seen put forth in any area by the ministry. If it is there, I would certainly like to be made aware of it. To my knowledge and from what I have seen, there is no record of the other constructive ideas I have put forth to the hon. member with respect to maximizing our aquaculture capabilities within Canada.

As I said before, I have no doubt that Canada can be a world leader in aquaculture because we have superb research taking place now. There is no reason that not only can we do this domestically but there are also enormous international trade possibilities in aquaculture existing around the world. In the future with our resources being decimated, we are going to need new sources of protein to feed the burgeoning populations in this world. Aquaculture could provide a large part of that protein.

There are great opportunities for Canada. I am sure the hon. member will pass that information back to the minister so he can act on it forthwith.

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, at second reading and to address the amendment before this honourable House.

It is a privilege to support Bill C-98 in principle and to support its objectives and its implementation. The people of Central Nova applaud the due diligence and leadership role the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has played in our country since assuming his responsibilities as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Thanks to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, our Canadian people have a renewed hope, a new vision for our coastal communities: protection for our fisheries and oceans. Finally, we have a human face of compassion amidst our fisheries crisis in Canada.

On Tuesday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans addressed this House on the oceans act and its importance to the maritime nation which is Canada. The vision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is to make Canada a world leader in oceans and marine resource management through this legislation. He enunciated for us the mission which this government has set for itself, to manage Canada's oceans in close co-operation with others so that our oceans are clean, safe, productive and accessible.

In my riding of Central Nova there exists the north shore and the eastern shore of the Atlantic Ocean. My constituents applaud the vision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans which he boldly pronounced on November 15, 1994 in the document "A Vision for Oceans Management". This document is based on the recommendations of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology Report on Oceans and Coasts. At that time the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said: "It has been long recognized for a long time that there is a need for one act to clearly assert Canada's sovereign rights and responsibilities over its oceans and territories".

Our minister of fisheries pointed to the proprietary pride which Canadians have in their oceans: the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic. These are fundamental to much of our existence, individually and as a nation. They have provided the means of transportation, trading, communications and subsistence from time immemorial. Generations have depended on our oceans for food, clothing and even medicine.

Canada with its three coasts has the longest coastline in the world and the second largest continental shelf spanning more than six and a half million kilometres. As the Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans pointed out in his vision document, Canada's oceans are equal to half of our territorial land mass and have been a key to our evolution culturally and economically. Fisheries, transportation and shipping, tourism and recreation, offshore oil and gas have all been beacons of hope and economic stability for numerous coastal communities along all three oceans.

In his 1994 vision paper the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans related as well the need to diversify our reliance on the maritime resources in light of the collapse of groundfish stocks along the east coast and in light of ever increasing stress being placed on the maritime habitat by our society. Critical habitat destruction, foreign and domestic overfishing, as well as marine and atmospheric pollution were all cause for concern.

This government recognized that a new oceans management regime was needed, one based on an ecological approach and on the development of an integrated management system for all activities affecting oceans and coastal waters. The time had come. The wake-up alarm had sounded for all Canadians to turn away from the band-aid measures of short term need to a policy which would result in the sustainable use of resources and environmental protection.

Through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the Government of Canada identified several key objectives of any new legal instrument:

First, to preserve and protect the oceans' environment, the ecosystems and resources they contain. Second, to establish a framework and guidelines to manage the oceans' resources, both renewable and non-renewable, on an economically sustainable and environmentally acceptable basis. Third, to enhance, focus, co-ordinate and disseminate Canada's scientific, environmental and management information relating to oceans and their resources. Fourth, to assert and enforce Canada's sovereign rights and responsibilities over its ocean resources and areas. Fifth, to establish the legal framework to support the implementation of this oceans management strategy. Sixth, to establish a clearly identifiable lead federal agency accountable for oceans management.

As the minister suggested, this should best be initiated by the development and passage of Canada's oceans act. As the minister pointed out to the House, Canada's oceans policy at present is like a big jigsaw puzzle, the pieces all scattered in front of us waiting for us to fit them all together. It is not easy to visualize the entire picture without seeing the box which the puzzle came in and its cover illustration. However, a great deal of work has gone into visualizing what the whole picture must be and determining a logical pattern for the pieces to be placed together, pieces as diverse as deep ocean research and cold ocean rescues, inspection and protection, emergency responses and sustainability, conservation and commercialization, navigational safety and national security, national goals and regional initiatives, restoration of our marine resources, and job creation.

We all know that it will take many minds to finish the puzzle in time for all Canadians to enjoy the results of the effort. From the outset this has not been the vision of one person or one group of persons imposed upon the rest of us. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has signalled clearly his openness toward full participation in the process so that all sides of the House, all stakeholders, all organizations, disciplines and sectors of society having an interest in our oceans can contribute.

Consultation has been a hallmark of the government in the carrying out of its responsibilities but the minister has sought more; namely, a partnership for a successful conclusion to this challenge; this beckoning to us from the future generations of Canada.

Through this legislation, Canada will be bringing into its own domestic law provisions for 200 nautical miles from its low water line to which it is already entitled as part of the modern international community.

Canada is taking on its rights and responsibilities as a member of the global community, a community with a growing realization that our actions are all interdependent, whether at the most local community level or at the level of global interaction and co-operation for survival.

The oceans act makes it possible for the federal government to solicit and expand partnerships in the many enterprises involved in scientific research, maritime communications and safety, fisheries conservation, management enforcement, underwater exploration and seabed mining, the understanding and sustainable exploitation of marine plants, the maintenance of trading routes through block ice.

It makes us all working shareholders in the development of a flexible, workable and ecologically sound ocean strategy for today and for the future, one well in keeping with Canada's motto, from sea to sea to sea.

In conclusion, this is a vision of Canada as being much more than the Rockies, the Laurentian Shield and great plains between them, of great cities lining up at our southern borders; it is also a view of myriad port cities and coastal communities, of diverse marine activities extending economic and social benefit to future generations brought to us by the rolling swells and rippled waves of blue beginnings at the edges of our land maps.

The oceans act is a vision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and of the Government of Canada. However, it is more than that: in its ink and paper, in the millions of electronic impulses and images which have gone into its preparation and discussion and communication from this very Chamber, it represents the aspirations of millions of Canadians.

It is a declaration by a maritime nation that it will continue to shoulder the challenges of the present but that it welcomes the support of all concerned as it navigates into the future.

A special thank you to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from all Canadians for Bill C-98 and for recognizing the importance of the maritime nation which is Canada.

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the oceans act and, in so doing, to pay tribute to its author, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In the short time he has occupied that post he has shown exemplary leadership by leading our country through one of the worst crisis in the Atlantic fishery and turning that difficult situation on the Atlantic coast, and as well in other respects on the Pacific coast, into an opportunity for Canada to assert its pride as a nation internationally and its sense of leadership on behalf of the world's oceans.

The oceans act which was tabled on Tuesday and which the minister addressed on Tuesday is, as he has pointed out, legislation that constitutes one element, but a major element, in the overall strategy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to intensify its effort toward the oceans and will be complemented by a number of other policies and activities in the months ahead.

The objectives of the oceans act are to recognize in domestic law Canada's jurisdiction over its ocean areas and their resources, to provide the legislative framework for a new oceans management regime and to regroup key federal ocean related statutes under the oceans act.

The legislation consists of three parts, each of which contains the regulatory enforcement and operational authorities required for its implementation.

Part I is Canada's maritime zones. This part defines Canada's maritime zones by incorporating provisions of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. It declares Canada's rights and jurisdiction over the contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone and it defines the minimum limits of Canada's continental shelf as provided for by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Let me point out that the declaration of the contiguous zone and of an exclusive economic zone is in full agreement with international practice. The limitation of Canada's maritime zones also outlines the area over which Canada will now apply its new oceans management strategy.

In accordance with the government's efforts to consolidate key ocean legislation under the umbrella of the oceans act, provisions of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act and the Canadian Laws Offshore Applications Act are incorporated into the this bill. This legislation further emphasizes Canada's rights with respect to the continental shelf. Canada has rights to living organisms belonging to sedentary species on or in the shelf and jurisdiction over the exploration and the exploitation of minerals and non-living resources of the seabed and of the subsoil.

The declaration of Canadian jurisdiction over the territorial sea and the contiguous zone and the exclusive zone is crucial. Most Canadians may not know these technical terms, but many Canadians will have heard the phrases 12-mile zone and 200-mile zone. Canada's territorial sea extends from the coastline out 12 nautical miles. In the territorial sea Canada has full jurisdiction to ocean waters, to the seabed beneath these waters and the space above.

The contiguous zone will extend an additional 12 nautical miles from the outer edge of the territorial sea. In this zone Canada will have the power to enforce our criminal, fiscal, immigration, sanitary and customs laws.

The exclusive economic zones will encompass all of the ocean area out to 200 nautical miles from the coastal baseline. In this zone Canada will have jurisdiction for exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the living and non-living resources of the waters, seabed and subsoil. Canada's jurisdiction in this zone will cover marine scientific research, protection and preservation of the marine environment and artificial islands, installations and structures.

Through this legislation Canada will establish major new rights over the ocean. In the councils of the world Canadians pushed hard to establish these rights. These new zones grant Canada powers that go well beyond the powers our country asserted in the past. The bill will put in place a clear definition of jurisdiction that is fully supported by global agreement.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans expressed this clearly on Tuesday in the House when he stated: "The world backs Canada's jurisdiction over Canadian waters".

This brings me to Part II, oceans management strategy. This part commits us to the development of a new method by which we shall manage the oceans and their resources. It identifies the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as the federal authority responsible for the co-ordination and facilitation of the development and implementation with stakeholders of an oceans management strategy. It provides the minister with the necessary statutory authority to do so. This part also authorizes the minister to create marine protected areas for the protection of the fishery resource.

Let me review the goals of the strategy outlined in the legislation. One goal is to integrate planning and management of activities within and among jurisdictions. Another is to reduce regulatory duplication and conflict. Still another is to increase the effectiveness of environmental protection measures and to replace the

existing sectoral approach to resource management in favour of a more comprehensive ecosystem-based approach.

The act thus provides the building blocks for integrated management and sustainable development of Canada's ocean resources. It outlines a new ecosystems approach to marine resource management. It provides a common focus for federal responsibilities and consolidates federal programs. It gives Canadians legislative tools with which to begin working on ocean management holistically, rather than sectorally.

We have long known the need for sustainable development of resources. This need was clearly put forward in the report of the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development, better known as the Bruntland report after its chairman, Gro Harlem Bruntland, now Prime Minister of Norway.

Here is how the commission defined sustainable development: "Activity in which the environment is fully incorporated into the economic decision-making process as a forethought, not an afterthought". The report called for: "Development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs". The government is acting on the commission's call.

Last year the National Advisory Board of Science and Technology called for an oceans act to address the needs of ocean frontier development for the present and the future. The advisory board called for Canada to develop a proactive oceans policy that plans for the future, rather than just responds to crisis.

In November 1994, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans released a document setting out the potential elements of an ocean management vision for Canada. The government sought the advice of Canadians across the country. Certain themes recurred in that advice. The federal government has a leadership role to play in oceans policy. There should be one federal department taking the lead in developing a new strategy. People want to be involved locally in developing solutions to regional priorities. There is a need to sustain resources and to diversify.

Such was the advice we received. It came from provinces, municipalities, coastal residents, fishermen, business, labour, environmentalists and scientists. The bill before us sets out the elements of an oceans policy. But all Canadians must be involved in developing specific mechanisms, planning and management structures, as well as the guidelines and standards needed to bring about sustainable use of oceans and their resources.

The oceans management strategy envisaged by this legislation is broad in scope and flexible in implementation. It recognizes the consensus building that is needed for a cohesive and coherent oceans policy for our country.

Again, let me quote the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from his address to the House on Tuesday: "The bill identifies federal leadership and commitment to a comprehensive approach to oceans management. The bill seeks to address regulatory duplication, conflict and inadequacies that result in inefficiencies, failure to protect the environment and impediments to development and this bill is founded on the principle that long term solutions require long term co-operation".

The oceans act will give the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, on behalf of the Government of Canada, legal authority to draw together all of Canada's ocean stakeholders, to develop a strategy based on the sustainable development and integrated management of activities and resources in estuarine, coastal and marine waters.

The act provides the authority to develop the actual mechanisms to implement the new strategy. It gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the ability to enter into new partnership agreements in order to ensure that the ocean management strategy meets regional needs and fulfils regional aspirations.

Part III deals with the powers, duties and functions of the minister. This part provides for consolidation and clarification of federal responsibilities for managing Canada's oceans. It reflects the enhanced mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and it provides statutory authority for Canadian Coast Guard functions transferred to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Those functions include provision of services for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waters; the marine component of the federal search and rescue program; pleasure craft safety and marine pollution prevention and response, as well as ships, aircraft and other marine services in support of other federal programs, boards and agencies.

Oceans related provisions previously contained in other legislation have been incorporated into this section of the act. Most notable is the authority of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to conduct hydrographic, oceanographic and marine scientific surveys, to conduct research and to publish various products.

As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans observed at the last debate on the oceans act, with this legislation we are coming to the successful conclusion of a long and dramatic chapter in Canada's maritime history. With this legislation we are coming to the beginning of a new and even more vital chapter in that history.

The Canada oceans act will give our country and exclusive economic zone covering almost 5 million square kilometres of the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans. With the passage of this act

Canada will effectively increase by one-half as our jurisdiction will encompass both the land mass and the oceans.

As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said, the Canada oceans act does expand our notion of Canada as a country. The oceans management strategy increases the priority we place as a society on wise development of our waters. It signals that Canada and Canadians are prepared to act in making the most of our ocean assets, opportunities and obligations.

The fisheries and oceans minister has aptly described the Canada oceans act as the last step forward toward formal jurisdiction over Canada's ocean territory. However, the act is also the first step toward recognizing the extraordinary importance and potential of this vast territory.

In legislative terms the bill establishes jurisdiction over Canada's ocean area and ocean resources. It establishes the primary rules and provides the tools to help support Canada's new oceans management regime. It consolidates and clarifies federal responsibilities for managing Canada's oceans.

In real life terms the bill marks a transition in Canadians' relationship with our oceans. It marks an acceptance of reciprocal obligation; as the oceans benefit us, so we are agreeing to act to benefit the oceans.

The oceans act signals a renewal of Canada's leadership in oceans management. With this act we are asserting Canada's role as a world leader. Sustainable development is a goal to which all nations must be committed, not only of the fisheries resource but of all ocean resources.

There may be seven seas but there is only one ocean. The oceans make up one single global organism connected by great currents flowing from hemisphere to hemisphere. Oceans play a vital role in regulating our climate. Oceans also play a key role in the water cycle, the chemistry of the atmosphere and the making of climate and weather. Oceans also supply us not only with food but also energy, minerals and medicines.

With the oceans act Canada will be in an even stronger position to show the world the way of conserving ocean resources. As the member for the Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, a constituency which depends greatly on the oceans near its coasts, be it for fishing or as a vital link in eastern Canada for ocean protection, for conservation and for environmental response through the Strait of Canso, I am very pleased to greet this Canada oceans act and the co-ordination and consolidation that it represents in Canada's oceans policy.

I am pleased also to support the government in bringing this legislation forward as well as the initiatives which will flow from this initiative in expanding Canada's sense of responsibility over the oceans and also in continuing the leadership which our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has demonstrated to the great pride of all Canadians in taking the lead in the world in managing our ocean environment.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest for the last several hours to the debate with regard to this bill.

I find something very disturbing as I look through it. I have been very involved in Bill C-68, the gun control bill. Now I look at Bill C-98 and at many other bills before the House and there is a trend that disturbs me very much, a trend toward centralizing power in Ottawa, the big bubble, the place that seems to lose touch with the concerns of grassroots Canadians, the concerns that people have out there trying to make a living, trying to find a livelihood they can depend on. This bill does not address that. In some instances it makes it even more difficult. Let me explain.

A bloated bureaucracy is being developed. There is the minister centralizing power within his office. It is a very top heavy administration, just like in agriculture, an area I am very familiar with. A study was done. In agriculture we have approximately 1 bureaucrat for every 5.8 farmers.

If we look at the fishing industry, how many bureaucrats does it take for the fishermen to fish, to do their work? We have through this bill even more of this type of bureaucracy developing.

I listened to what was said, things like we need to co-ordinate, we need to do all these wonderful things. Are they just euphemisms? Are those code words for more bloated bureaucracy?

I look at other things in the bill. The governments says it will need fees to cut back on the deficits in this area. This is just another word for taxes these fishermen will have to pay.

It was an eye opener for me to go to New Brunswick a couple of weeks ago, to the southwestern part of the province, and talk with the fishermen who are being squeezed out of the fishery by the regulations the government is putting in place, by the taxes in the form of fees which are driving these fishermen out of work. I find that unacceptable. The bill makes that even more possible. We have to start addressing the real concerns of real people out there.

Is it the intention of the government to give big corporations more power to fish? If we talk to the people out there they will tell us about the draggers, the big chains destroying the environment. I hear the member speaking about how the government will protect the environment and protect all of these things. That is not happening. That is not the reality of what is happening.

These people are allowed to fish and the handliners are being restricted. They are not being allowed to fish. It does not make sense that we allow these huge boats that carry these big chains or drag these big nets to fish every day of the week but the handliners are being restricted to one or two days and sometimes not even that.

We have a real problem and the bill does not address that problem. The government is out of touch with reality. It is becoming obvious to Atlantic Canadians that big central government, just like it has become obvious to the Bloc and the people of Quebec and the people of western Canada, is attempting to centralize power and this big central government grabbing this power is not the answer to the needs of people out there. That is a big problem.

What about allowing more fishermen a say in their industry? Is there anything built into the bill, any structure, whereby they can have elected boards or make their bureaucrats and politicians more accountable? I do not see it. It is not there.

It sounds so good to have Ottawa co-ordinate all this stuff. I think it is just another euphemism, another excuse for more big government.

The bill also makes it possible for special interest groups to influence the minister and the bureaucrats to get their way. That is probably happening already at this time.

The government could have done things like extend the 200-mile limit to solve some of these problems, but they are not in here. The teeth for this I do not find in the bill.

In Canada there are over 6,000 department of fisheries officials managing 65,000 licences. It sounds just like the department of agriculture, a huge number of bureaucrats. The fishermen do not warrant such numbers.

The department operates with a budget that exceeds $750 million to administer it. Clearly there is room for a little cost cutting at the very top, and not simply increasing the fees of the fishermen. Perhaps the minister could lead by example and save a little money on his office furniture. That was a concern; maybe one less oak table could have helped one more fisherman in Atlantic Canada. It would say the minister and the department are not treating the fishermen with absolute disdain if there were some cutbacks made by him and by the department.

It is adamantly clear the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not committed to downsizing his bloated department. He would rather try to slip a new level of bureaucracy into his department under the guise of broad consultation rather than deal with the harsh realities of downsizing.

Has the minister not got the message? Canadians want less government. Everywhere I go they repeat government members should be listening but they are not. Canadians want less government.

What the Atlantic fishermen tell us in no uncertain terms is their distress over the licensing fees for Atlantic Canadian fishermen is a very serious matter. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans wants to collect $50 million in access fees from the fishermen who ply their trade in the waters off the coast of Atlantic Canada.

These fees are just taxes, as I have already explained. No matter how the Liberals dress them up they are simply more taxes. Fees are nothing new to the industry but it is irresponsible for the government and the minister to subject the fishermen of a region already devastated by mismanagement to further hardship.

These people are having a rough time. They cannot afford this. Talk to them when they have to increase their fees from less than $100 to four times that amount. Some of them will have to pay up to $16,000 if they want to fish in certain parts of the industry.

It is ridiculous that a government would expect them to come up with that kind of money. That is more than their net income in an entire year. This tax will only make things worse for the fishermen. It will be an unbearable burden on all fishermen from coast to coast, not just the people of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland or P.E.I.

The tax increase will be enormous. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans collects about $13 million in licence fees and its goal is to increase this to $50 million, three to four times the present amount. That is totally unacceptable.

Any Atlantic Canadian MP who speaks up for the fishermen in his or her own riding knows well they may end up in political oblivion. The bureaucracy that has developed within the Liberal Party, within this Ottawa bubble, has made it so that the common people cannot even have their voice heard.

Another problem is that in the future any decisions made on the new fees will be through governor in council decrees without parliamentary scrutiny. We saw the same thing on gun control, Bill C-68.

The minister gives himself absolute power to make these regulations, to do these things behind closed doors. That is not acceptable in this day and age. We need to open things up. We need to give the fishermen a voice in what is happening in their own affairs.

What message does this send to Canadians on the accountability of government? Governments need to be more accountable and I do not see it happening in the bill. I wish I could go on. I appreciate the time I have had to represent the people of New Brunswick. I hope the government will listen.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-316, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Immigration Act

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-316 today. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Cambridge for his efforts in this regard.

The intent of the bill is simple: non-citizens convicted of serious criminal offences in Canada should be deported. There is nothing earth-shattering in this idea. In fact, it is currently the law of the land.

Bill C-316 attempts to bring some certainty to the process by having the deportation incorporated into the offender's sentence. I can see why the hon. member for Cambridge found it necessary to try to bring some certainty to the process. It is not there now.

Many who have spoken in opposition to the bill, including the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, have stated that what we have in place now is more than sufficient. The reality is that there are major deficiencies in our present legislation, even with Bill C-44. On occasion these deficiencies have outrageous and tragic consequences.

I would like to advise the House about a current case taking place in British Columbia. On September 23, 1993, Hector Lopez-Tello, a Guatemalan refugee claimant, was convicted of drug trafficking and ordered deported. He was allowed to remain in Canada while he appealed the deportation order. On April 28 of this year Francisco Castro, a refugee claimant from El Salvador, was also ordered deported after being convicted of drug trafficking. He was also allowed to remain in Canada while he appealed. On May 7 Lopez-Tello, Castro, and a third refugee claimant were arrested and charged with the second degree murder of 24-year-old Matthew McKay. The three murder suspects appear in court on October 16 of this year.

Meanwhile, McKay left behind a wife, a 16-month-old daughter, and a mother who wonders about Canada's justice system and immigration system. She should wonder. How does a man like Francisco Castro get to continue to walk the streets of Canada when, according to an IRB spokesperson, he had an extensive criminal record for trafficking in a narcotic?

We provide the man with refuge and instead of thanking us he involves himself in the drug trade. When he is ordered deported he takes advantage of the numerous appeals available to refugee claimants and walks the street a free man. Meanwhile, a young man is murdered and leaves behind a wife and child.

If ever the hon. member for Cambridge needed an example as to why his bill should succeed, this is it. If Lopez-Tello and Castro had been deported immediately after their drug trafficking convictions, maybe Matthew McKay would still be alive today.

Most Canadians think that we should be deporting these individuals. Less than a year ago I included the following question in one of my householders: Should immigrants or refugees convicted of serious offences be automatically deported? I received 2,829 responses to the survey, of which 2,744 people, or 97 per cent, said yes. Only 61 people, or 3 per cent, disagreed. That shows us the support that is out there for such legislation.

The Canadian people have traditionally been generous in welcoming new immigrants to this country. We welcome people from countries all over the world to come to Canada to start new lives. We welcome legitimate refugees fleeing war and oppression in their homelands. However, Canadians' hospitality does not extend to criminals. Those who enter Canada illegally, with criminal records, or those who commit serious criminal offences once they arrive in Canada should not expect an equally generous reception. Those with criminal records prior to their entry to Canada are inadmissible; thus, they should not even be in this country. However, those who commit serious criminal offences in Canada have violated the basic agreement of their welcome to Canada. In exchange for a safe haven or the opportunity to start a new life that Canada offers refugees or immigrants, we have every reason to expect these individuals to obey the laws of our land. If they do not, they have sent us a clear message that they are not prepared to live up to their end of the bargain. Why should we feel compelled to allow these individuals to remain in Canada when they are telling us that they are not going to play by our rules? The deportation of these individuals should be automatic-end of the argument.

This brings us back to Bill C-316. Many of those who have spoken before me have pointed out some of the technical flaws of the bill. Yes, there are problems, but nothing that cannot be corrected by amendments made at committee or report stage. The

intent of this bill is sound. It deserves the opportunity for further hearing.

It is important that this House send two important messages. The first message should be sent to immigrants or refugees intent on committing serious criminal offences: If you commit a serious crime, on top of the other penalty that you may receive, you will be deported. The second message needs to go to the Canadian people, and that is that this Parliament is intent on ridding Canada of foreign criminals. This is most important.

Although those immigrants and refugees who commit serious crimes are a very small minority, they receive all the headlines. Canadians become outraged when they see the difficulty we have in deporting these criminals. It ends up bringing the entire immigration and refugee program into disrepute. Thus, we have to show Canadians that we are prepared to get rid of these few individuals who adversely affect the reputations of all immigrants and refugees.

Passing Bill C-316 will demonstrate that we are prepared to deal with the issue and deal with it quickly. It deserves a full and comprehensive hearing. Those in favour of the bill and those opposed should have the opportunity to appear before the committee and present their views. From there the committee can make whatever amendments necessary to make this a workable piece of legislation. After all, if the government made over 80 amendments to Bill C-68 at report stage, and that was its own legislation, we should have no problem in amending this bill. Those who are convinced that the final product is not acceptable can still vote against it at third reading. However, it deserves the opportunity to pass second reading and go to the committee.

I urge all members of this House to consider the bill carefully and to give it their support at second reading.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, before I get into the specifics of the bill I would like to take a minute to talk about my colleague, the member for Cambridge.

Many of you who sat in the previous Parliament or two Parliaments ago would remember that the member for Cambridge, Mr. Chris Speyer, Conservative member of Parliament, devoted most of his time to issues related to securing safety in the streets and law and order in this country. In fact he distinguished himself in this House working on such issues and later he was appointed to the Federal Court of Canada.

Our colleague, when he was elected in the last election, had a tremendous challenge in front of him, quite frankly, to fill those shoes. It is obvious that in less than two years he has already, on behalf of the community of Cambridge, filled those shoes and gone beyond. I think that today's bill is not only representative of the feelings and views a lot of his own community has, but it is also a representation of what I know most of the people in my community in downtown Toronto feel. It is a bill that my community would want supported.

I salute my colleague from Cambridge for a tremendous effort in bringing this private member's bill before the House.

It is great to see that the Reform Party members are getting behind this bill. It is very rare that a member can bring to the House of Commons a bill and achieve such all-party consensus. That is a great achievement for a member of Parliament in his first term.

Bill C-316 has a personal appeal to me because the parents and a lot of the relatives of Georgina Leimonis lived in my riding. In my downtown Toronto riding there are more members of the Greek community than any other community outside of Athens. Our community was deeply disturbed by the tragic death of Georgina. This is a very specific example of why this bill must be passed, must go to committee, must be properly amended and made the law of the land.

Bill C-316 enables the court, in addition to any other sentence, to order the removal of a non-citizen convicted of an offence punishable by 10 or more years. It accelerates the deportation process and would save Canadian taxpayers money, because two separate hearings, immigration and sentencing, would not be needed. This bill does not apply to anyone who arrived in Canada prior to 16 years of age.

Today in our correctional service system, our prisons, there are non-citizens who are using this defect in our current law, and it is costing the taxpayers of Canada close to $50 million a year. Conceivably, for the same group who are in our prisons today, that same group, without any increase, over the term of a government we would be talking $250 million.

When the fiscal framework of this country is in such tough condition and we are all trying to the best of our ability to be frugal and to cut and eliminate waste and duplication, it seems to me that alongside the basic justice in the bill there is also an economic factor that has to be looked at.

If we did not support this bill it is not inconceivable that within two or three years it could cost the taxpayers of Canada $150 million a year to look after non-Canadians who have criminal offences as part of their record and who are abusing our laws. I believe this is another factor in the equation.

Another thing I believe we must understand is that the member for Cambridge did not just listen to his own community and members here; he went to other organizations. I want to quote specifically from a letter he received from Victims of Violence, the Canadian Centre for Missing Children: "Mr. Peric's bill focuses on those immigrants who have committed serious criminal offences, sometimes violent. His bill distinguishes the criminals from the

overwhelming majority of law-abiding immigrants. Those convicted of offences punishable by 10 years or more should be deported from Canada as quickly as possible. Victims of Violence would like to congratulate Mr. Peric on his efforts. On behalf of the Canadian public and the many crime victims we serve throughout Canada, we would like to thank him."

CAVEAT has written a similar endorsement. The Canadian Police Association has written to support the bill of the member for Cambridge.

I urge all members to look into the bill. We have a unique opportunity to get behind it in committee. As the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, the immigration critic for the Reform Party, stated earlier, the bill has some flaws that can be amended in committee. However the overall thrust or the overall approach is right. I urge all members of the House to get behind the member's bill.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak this evening on Bill C-316. As has been pointed out by many hon. colleagues who have already spoken to the bill, there are a number of problems with it. However the private member bringing it forward did not have access to a battery of lawyers or experts in the departments of justice or immigration to point them out.

The role of private members is to bring good ideas for legislation forward. It is the role of the House and the committee to which it is assigned to improve it and make it workable. In this case I believe the member for Cambridge has focused the attention of the House on a problem Canadians want to see solved. It is now our job to ensure the bill makes it to committee where we will have the benefit of the expertise of departmental officials who have been studying the issue. I am sure the hon. member would agree to changes that maintain the spirit and intent of the bill while making it legally defensible.

Canadians want non-citizens who commit abhorrent crimes deported. It is our duty as their elected representatives to ensure the bill does not get buried in committee. We must send a clear message to other criminals who believe they are living in a land where there are relatively light consequences for breaking the law.

If we have the political will we can overcome any road blocks. By failing to act in an expeditious manner to treat the deportation of non-citizen criminals as a high priority, the government is not acting in the best interest of the safety of Canadians.

Canadians want to see criminals dealt with decisively. They will be much more willing to accept the fact that the vast majority of immigrants respect our laws if they see a government commitment to immediate deportation of those who break them.

I have heard Liberal colleagues across the way say that sentencing foreign criminals to deportation would be cruel and unusual punishment under the charter. Frankly, if they do not respect any of our other laws, they can exercise their charter rights somewhere else in the world.

The charter of rights has an implied charter of responsibilities. We already treat non-citizens differently by denying them the right to vote. We already deny convicted criminals the freedom of mobility. I do not think it is beyond the spirit or intent of the charter to deny non-citizens convicted of violent crimes or drug trafficking the right to remain in Canada.

In the meantime too many criminals are tying up our legal system and slipping out the side door while we bend over backward to apply the charter to protect their rights. The charter seems to be the only piece of legislation some criminals are aware of. Our charter is supposed to be a shield to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians, not a sword to be used against us by criminals who do not respect any of our other laws.

In the time remaining I should like to focus on a couple of matters I believe should be looked at when the bill goes to committee. One problem is the section that allows for the deportation of dependants. This clause must be looked at. For example, what if the non-citizen was convicted of first degree murder of his or her spouse. We would hardly want to deport the children with the convicted parent. We would want to consult with family and friends to determine the safest home for them, be that in Canada or in the country of origin.

It has also been argued that by having the sentencing judge issue the removal order it makes deportation a punishment rather than merely an administrative option available to the government.

The objection is then made that we are not treating non-citizens the same as citizens and therefore they are being doubly punished for the same crime. That objection can be dealt with. The sentencing judge could be responsible for delivering the crown's administrative decision that deportation proceed. Then we could eliminate the inquiry stage.

The bill also prevents appeals through the immigration appeals division. It is trying to make sure non-citizens do not disappear between the end of their prison sentence and the immigration appeal hearing.

For example, in August, Montreal papers reported the story of Patrick Baptiste who was under deportation orders for drug dealing but not surprisingly failed to show up at the hearing when his appeal was rejected. The police caught up with him a few months later. Only this time he was implicated in planning a murder. Now that his deportation appeal has been rejected, I hope when he

finishes his current jail term he will not be given a chance to escape again.

His is not an isolated case. According to a Gazette article a special task force made up of RCMP and immigration officers has identified 1,888 convicted criminals ordered deported who remained here. Twelve hundred were serious criminals, liable to more than 10 years imprisonment. Those are ones the bill is trying to deal with. As of August one-third had either left the country or had been deported. Another third, 671 of the 1,888, had appealed their deportation orders or claimed refugee status and a further 300 are still missing.

Despite eliminating a right to appeal through the immigration appeals division under clause 3 of section 32.1 unfortunately the bill adds an automatic appeals process under the Criminal Code. This would certainly have to be amended should the bill go further.

By allowing an automatic appeal hearing it would actually be a small step back from the Bill C-44 changes and I do not believe Bill C-44 went far enough. In addition to violent offenders, non-citizens who are habitual criminals should also be denied the right of appeal.

I view the three years before a landed immigrant takes out citizenship as a probationary period. Canadians have welcomed them into our house and have given them the opportunity to become part of our family. If they do not respect our laws they have broken their contract with us.

Why do we wait a minimum of three years before granting citizenship? Is it just so new immigrants have time to learn the name of our Prime Minister or how many provinces there are? Surely we place greater value on Canadian citizenship than that.

Habitual criminals, drug traffickers and violent criminals are not welcome. How many times should someone be allowed to break our law before we show them the door? When we show them door because they have committed a serious criminal offence in Canada, they should not be allowed to come back in.

Just today the paper reported on a criminal who has been deported from Canada five times at an average cost of $50,000. That is $250,000 taxpayers have had to pay for this one case. He was first granted landed immigrant status in 1975 and by 1976 had been convicted of theft. He was deported in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. Then he came back in 1990 and claimed refugee status. Now he is an arsonist, setting fires in public malls.

I am encouraged to see that immigration officials have taken the unusual step of trying to appeal his refugee status. The problem is that other criminals we deport also come back claiming refugee status. This is a loophole Bill C-316 does not plug.

Even the UN High Commission for Refugees does not support asylum shopping. That is exactly what it is when people who have already been deported return to Canada claiming they are refugees.

During 1993-94 according to Correctional Service Canada there were over 1,000 foreign nationals serving time in our prisons. At an average cost of almost $46,000 this amounts to almost $50 million. The auditor general estimated the real cost of maintaining someone in prison was closer to $80,000. This means it costs taxpayers around $80 million to keep foreign nationals in prison every year.

To put this in another context, the entire immigration department including enforcement, settlement, language training for new immigrants and so on has been ordered to cut $54 million from its budget over the next couple of years.

In conclusion, despite the problems the member has made a valiant attempt to address a serious issue. Let us take the bill to committee where we will have the advice and expertise of departmental officials and counsel to improve it so that we can bring it back to the House.

Immigration officials are studying ways of streamlining deportation of criminals, but it could be another year or two before the minister brings a comprehensive plan forward. Let us work on the problem now using the bill before us as the vehicle.

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I too want to congratulate the member for Cambridge for bringing forward Bill C-316 and to compliment him on his efforts to try to deal with what I consider to be a justice issue and a law and order issue.

I probably should not say it this way, but I approach support of the bill with some trepidation because I see Reformers are also supporting it, which means that if they are I must be wrong. At the same time the bill is a positive effort. I am hopeful once it gets to committee and has the chance to have the shared view of many that the improvements necessary to make the bill function properly will be put forward.

I believe all of us are in accord that the direction, the aim or intent of the bill is a proper one, one all of us in Canada would like to see happen.

If I may I would like to read the summary of the intent of the bill. It captures where the member for Cambridge wants us to go and reflects the intent of most Canadians.

It says:

If a person is convicted of an offence punishable by 10 or more years imprisonment and is or is seeking permission to remain in Canada, but is not yet a citizen, a court may, on application by the prosecution, order in addition to any other sentence, that the person and anyone dependent on that person be removed from Canada. Such an order discontinues any other process, procedure or appeal

under the Immigration Act and any other right to parole or any other early or temporary release.

We are not talking about trying to take away anybody's rights. We are not trying to do anything different except streamline the process. Rather than dealing with the criminal justice aspect and then turning around and going through the procedures under the Immigration Act, the legislation empowers the judge to deal with the issues together, as he has heard the evidence of the case, and to decide whether or not deportation should be part of the decision.

That approach is a proper one. There are some constitutional or charter of rights issues that will have to be dealt with. I am sure some other fine tunings are necessary.

At the same time the object of the bill warrants that it goes to committee and that it has the necessary input from all concerned so that in the end result we will have a stronger situation that provides necessary protection for Canadian society.

We have heard recounted in the debate over the last number of hours some of the horror stories that have occurred. Those are horror stories for sure, but perhaps they also point to some of the flaws that presently exist in our law. The bill is aimed at trying to resolve some of them.

The bill has received support from a number of agencies and organizations in Canada. To name a few, the Canadian Police Association, CAVEAT and Victims of Violence are organizations that watch what is happening in the criminal justice system and for the flaws that may be present. When we achieve their support I believe we are moving in the proper direction. Therefore, a committee study of this legislation should go a long way to helping protect Canadians.

Others have talked about the actual cost associated with this process. In the years 1993-94 there were over 1,000 foreign national offenders serving time which cost the taxpayers of Canada roughly $46,000 per prisoner.

Obviously with this bill we are going to save a little money. I do not think that should be the motivation for the legislation. The protection of society and the proper administration of justice should be the foundations, but we also can look at the financial aspect of this particular bill and see the merits associated with it.

It is a proper bill for committee study. It is a bill aimed at solving a problem which is of concern to Canadians. I again congratulate the member for Cambridge. He has done a tremendous job in his efforts to correct a situation he saw in his riding and from what he heard from his constituents, but also to represent the views of many Canadians across the country.

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate at second reading Bill C-316, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act.

Congratulations to my hon. colleague from Cambridge for bringing forth a bill to amend the Immigration Act that will take steps to ensure that those who came to this great country Canada and refuse to abide by the laws are not permitted to stay. This bill if adopted will make Canadian streets safer.

Canada has a proud tradition and reputation not as a country that merely tolerates immigrants, but rather as one that welcomes them with open arms. It is no secret that this great country was built by immigrants and that the vast majority of people that come to this country today continue to make an honest and meaningful contribution to our ever evolving Canadian society.

As you are aware, the law has always recognized that serious criminality is grounds for deportation and the Immigration Act provides the mechanism to facilitate this. Bill C-316 in no way attempts to undermine or contradict the current Immigration Act but rather to improve, streamline and broaden some of the regulations that exist in the current act.

It is important to recognize that this government is concerned about addressing serious crime by non-citizens and has taken steps to ensure removal of these types of offenders. This past spring the House passed Bill C-44 which limited the rights of serious criminals to appeals under the immigration system. These offenders will also no longer be eligible for any form of early release or parole.

Bill C-316 if adopted will complement the accomplishments of Bill C-44. The bill will fill in many of the cracks and loopholes that still exist between sentencing and the deportation hearing. Bill C-316 will permit a court at the time of sentencing of an offender convicted of a serious offence with a penalty of 10 years or more to make a deportation order at the same time. Offenders may appeal within the criminal process but will no longer have access to the appeals process under the Immigration Act.

There have been concerns that this process may be an infringement on the rights of the offenders, but this bill does not create any new or special offence or any new distinction between citizens and non-citizens. The distinctions already exist under the Immigration Act. The offender is already subject to criminal sanctions and deportation. Bill C-316 merely puts both matters in the hands of the courts. There are also two important additional measures contained in this bill worth noting.

First, the bill addresses how to proceed with offenders who came to Canada at an early age. It is recognized that many people immigrate at an early age and for one reason or another have not become a citizen. For this reason there is a provision in the bill that

would exempt a person who has immigrated to Canada prior to their sixteenth birthday and who has had no criminal convictions in five years previous to the offence in question.

Second, the bill provides for the transfer of offender by court order to their country of origin to serve their sentence if the reciprocal conditional release provisions exist. Under the Transfer of Offenders Act, a transfer can currently happen only upon the request of the offender. This bill removes the decision from the offender and places it in the hands of the judge.

In this bill, as in many private members' bills intended to amend existing legislation, there are procedural and substantive issues which arise. Several of my colleagues raised some of these concerns today during debate. Issues to be addressed relate to the procedure of deporting dependents of convicted offenders, the training that will be necessary for judges in these cases and the possible constitutional challenges.

We must keep in mind that what we are debating here is the principle of this bill. No one can argue that the intent and principle of the bill is not valid and that we as legislators have a responsibility to develop and enact legislation that will make Canadians safer. Bill C-316 will achieve this principle.

The hon. member for Cambridge has expressed his willingness to work in co-operation with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the standing committee to address any procedural or substantive concerns that may arise.

In conclusion I would like to restate my support for Bill C-316 in principle and call upon my fellow parliamentarians to do the same. The member for Cambridge is attempting to make the streets safer. The people of Canada deserve no less.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise with pride to endorse Bill C-316 and to offer congratulations to my colleague the member for Cambridge who recognized a problem that exists in the system as we have it today. He has dealt with it in such a way that it looks as though with the endorsement of the House it will go on to become law.

We would be remiss if we did not reflect a little on why a debate on a private members' bill can become as important as it has in this session. Those who are new here will not see any difference, but those who have been involved in political life and parliamentary procedure in the past years realize that historically private members' bills hardly ever, if ever, have seen the light of day. They have been a medium for debate and probably have established some tone of opinion among parliamentarians, but they had no chance of becoming law.

To the credit of this government, now private members' bills do have a chance to become law and they are subjected to a free vote so that everyone in the House can deliver their opinion. We now have private members' bills, some applying to law and order issues, which have been introduced by thoughtful members of the House and are moving on to become part of our justice system.

It is interesting to note an article which appeared in the Toronto Sun on September 17, written by Sean Durkan of the Ottawa bureau. He talks about the quiet war on crime that is being waged by the present government. It is not big headline grabbing stuff, but little by little the Minister of Justice is clawing away at the loopholes and flaws that are present in the judicial system. He said: ``The Liberal government has actually done more to toughen up the system in two years than the previous Tory government did in nine''. That should go on record to show that the government has taken the issue of law and order very, very seriously.

Laws of this nature do not get introduced and are not made without some reaction to an incident or occurrence. Of course that is the evolution of virtually all law over, above and beyond our Constitution. When bills are passed in the House they are passed because some situation has arisen. This is an evolutionary process. It goes on. We who serve here for our brief time have an opportunity to contribute.

It is only in this 35th Parliament of Canada that we have had the opportunity as private members, or backbenchers as we are called, to be able to make a solid contribution to the way these laws unfold and the way the legislative system progresses. It makes these bills very important to the life of Canada. I know that members as a result assume far more personal responsibility when they introduce bills of this nature.

I would like to congratulate all of the people who participated in the debate. I believe everything that could have been said on this subject has been said. Now is the time for us to take it to the next stage, shepherd it through and ensure that our efforts are not wasted, so we will see in due course in the slowness of the democratic process, this becoming part of our legal system and making a great contribution to it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I wonder if the hon. member for Cambridge would like to use his right of reply.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to participate in the debate, but I do not want to take the time normally allotted to the member for closing. If my speaking causes that, I will not speak.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

You will have five or six minutes.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to take a few minutes to speak on this bill and perhaps in a peripheral way to raise an issue which should be of import to members of the House. I want to bring the following to the attention of members.

I see in the bill a provision whereby the effect of the proposed legislation would not apply to people who were less than 16 years of age when they came to Canada. That is an important issue and I want to talk about it a bit, particularly because I have a constituency case where such an incident occurred. It is roughly the following. I will change the ages ever so slightly to ensure that I respect the privacy of the constituent in question.

I was approached by the family of a constituent who came to Canada when he was two years old. He lived in this country and when he was an adult he committed a crime. The incident was something like a brawl in a bar and he was charged with assault causing bodily harm. It was very serious. The victim nearly died.

My constituent was incarcerated, served his time and was eventually released from jail. He was reintegrated into society and led a normal life. He found a job and so on. Three or four years later when everything was behind him, the authorities came knocking on his door to inform him that they were commencing procedures to deport him.

The difficulty is the following: The individual had never seen another country in his life. I am dealing with this case right now and I have brought it to the attention of the minister.

When we come across the easy cases, particularly in the popular press when some person has come to Canada, has abused the laws of this country and therefore, we should kick him or her out, it is of course generally a proposition I agree with. But it is not always that easy. The case I am bringing to the House today is to illustrate that sometimes it is a lot more complicated.

To take the example of someone who came to this country when very young, aged two, then that person is actually a product of Canada, if we can use that term. If that person has developed criminal tendencies, he or she certainly did not have them on arrival in Canada when less than two years old. That is the first proposition.

The second is, if that person is deported, deported to where? Any country is like any other, because the person has never been anywhere except Canada.

Third, if we as a society do not want other countries shipping their criminals here, why should we take ours and ship them elsewhere? I say ours because I consider someone who was only two when he came here to indeed be one of us.

I am taking up the House's time to explain this because the problem lies not in this bill but in the present statute.

I trust that when the parliamentary committee studies this initiative-and I congratulate my colleague from Cambridge for having presented it to the House-it will look at the entire problem at the same time.

I have just been speaking with a colleague who tells me that someone he knows very well has in fact defended cases similar to the one I have just described here in the House.

As a Canadian, as a parent and as a member of the House, my gut feeling is always that when someone commits a crime and is not a Canadian we should do our best to send them back. That is still generally true in what I believe.

I caution the House and invite colleagues, particularly those who sit on the committee, to think of the peripheral issues I have just raised because they are very real and they do affect many people.

I thank hon. members in advance for their study of the bill. I congratulate the member for having brought this issue to the attention of Parliament.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to briefly thank all the members who have spoken on my private member's Bill C-316.

I understand certain members have some concerns with particular elements of the bill. I assure them their concerns can be addressed through amendments at the committee stage.

I urge my colleagues to support Bill C-316 at this stage in the process. I look forward to working with them in making this an even better piece of legislation.