House of Commons Hansard #57 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.

Topics

Constitution Amendment, 2005Private Members' Business

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how cordial this debate has been and I believe that all Canadians appreciate that. When they see parliamentarians debating without derision and discord, it is something that we can all be congratulated for. We are representing all the parties here and we are having a very practical and productive discussion. Although this will not be my most riveting speech or presentation, I am sure it will contribute to this evening.

When we talk about the historical source of the disallowance and reservation powers, we know historically both these powers have their origin in the British colonial system. The power of reservation had its origin in the instructions given by the Crown to the governor of a colony as to the exercise by him of the power to assent to bills passed by the colonial legislative body and both these powers are referred to in the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865, something we are all quite familiar with.

The legal source of the actual powers as they exist today in relation to provincial bills and legislation is as follows. With respect to the reservation power, the Constitution Act of 1867 confers upon the lieutenant governors of the provinces the power to reserve a bill for the Governor General, who may then decide whether or not to grant assent to the bill.

With respect to the disallowance power, as my hon. colleague has mentioned, the Constitution Act of 1867 also confers a separate power upon the Governor General to disallow provincial statutes. There are some particular points to note about these powers.

First, the powers of reservation and disallowance continue to exist in law and apply to all provincial statutes without exception. As a matter of political reality, however, their use would now be considered by many to be unacceptable and some constitutional authors go so far as to suggest their use would be unconstitutional in the conventional sense.

Second, these powers can be exercised only in relation to an entire bill or statute. It is not possible to reserve or disallow only a part of a bill or a statute.

Third, the Minister of Justice is responsible for advising on the reservation and disallowance of provincial bills and acts in accordance with the Department of Justice Act, which provides that Minister of Justice “shall advise on the legislative Acts and proceedings of each of the legislatures of the provinces...”

There was a recent comment by the Supreme Court of Canada. In it the nature and scope of these powers were accurately reflected in the following comments by Mr. Justice La Forest, when he had the occasion to note that the federal declaratory power “is not the only draconian power vested in the federal authorities”. He went on to state:

The powers of disallowance and reservation accorded the federal government by ss. 55-57 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867 give it unrestricted authority to veto any provincial legislation. The exercise of this authority is wholly a matter of discretion for the federal government, and in the Reference case just noted, it was stated that the courts are not constitutionally empowered to express an opinion about its exercise--

He further commented on page 372:

It is the very breadth of these powers that protects against their frequent or inappropriate use. It was not the courts but political forces that dictated their near demise. They are, as was said of the power of disallowance, “delicate” and “difficult” powers to exercise and “will always be considered a harsh exercise of power, unless in cases of great and manifest necessity”...Their inappropriate use will always raise grave political issues--

Those issues time will not permit me to continue to discuss.

Constitution Amendment, 2005Private Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

Constitution Amendment, 2005Adjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South, NL

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to discuss with my friend, the parliamentary secretary, a fishing issue. Unfortunately, we have with us the former minister of fisheries. I know it will be difficult for the parliamentary secretary to read his prepared speech and try to explain why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is in such a mess. He knows as well as I do that a lot of the mess is because of the former minister, but he cannot say it very well.

Some time ago I raised a question concerning the minister's visit to the United Nations. At that time he, along with a number of others, agreed to a document that basically discussed the type of fishing gear that was being used. Concerns were expressed about bottom trawling, in particular, and other gear that would do damage to the environment.

No one in his right mind would object to governments expressing concern about some of the fishing gear being used, particularly when it is used in sensitive areas. We support any effort that the minister or the government would take in these areas.

However this initiative was taken in haste. We were told, and it is on the record, by officials of the department that even the department itself was unaware of some of the wording of the resolution until a couple of days before the actual signing, and that no one really knew what they were signing. There is no excuse for that because we should never sign a document that has been changed or tampered with from the original, which, I guess, approvals were given. Either someone is not telling us the truth of the matter or the government acted in haste.

The concern we expressed at the time was that the minister did this without any consultation whatsoever with industry. Industry picked up the information that the minister was going to agree to such an agreement a couple of days before it actually happened. There was a flurry of activity and we had several excuses about the wording being changed.

This might work out okay if it is done in moderation and if it is done to deal with poor technology used in sensitive areas not affecting the general harvesting of products such as shrimp for instance or general trawling for groundfish.

As Canadians we have to be concerned with the destruction that has taken place, particularly just outside our 200 mile limit. Most of that destruction is being done with bottom trawling and we have to be very sensitive about that. However just to go out and ban bottom trawling would be extremely unproductive at this time. We have to educate the people who fish in these areas, that such technology can be very damaging because a bottom trawl is almost like a vacuum cleaner. It sucks up practically everything that is there and in directing for one species it is catching several others, which is having complete and utter devastation on our stocks.

My question was not to express concern about certain technologies, nor was it that we were against using destructive technology in sensitive areas. It was the fact that the minister would rush off and do something like this without proper consultation, because sometimes we can do ourselves a lot more damage than good.

On the other hand, if properly presented with the right cooperation from other countries, we could get a stronger agreement. All we are seeing from the foreign countries with which we deal in these arrangements and all these conferences we have is lip service. They come here and listen when we talk to them about this but we are not getting anywhere.

I hope the parliamentary secretary will tell us that he learned from that and that collectively we can go on--

Constitution Amendment, 2005Adjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Constitution Amendment, 2005Adjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Charlottetown P.E.I.

Liberal

Shawn Murphy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I appreciate the opportunity today to rise in the House and say a few words on this important debate about the United Nations resolution on sustainable fisheries.

The UN resolution is very prudent. It was not made in haste. It was made after a lot of negotiation and deliberation. Difficult discussions led to its adoption. It spells out the need for an evaluation on a case by case basis and the use of sound scientific advice to define a destructive fishing practice prior to consideration of any prohibition of fishing.

The hon. member in his speech said that several others supported this resolution. I will tell the hon. member how many other countries supported it. When the matter came to a vote before the United Nations, 140 countries voted in favour of this resolution, one voted against the it and two countries abstained. I am a little surprised, shocked and disappointed that the Conservative Party does not support this resolution which was adopted by 140 countries.

The resolution generally reflects present Canadian practices in its domestic waters. The goal of our management domestically is to limit the use of destructive fishing practices to maintain the sustainability of the resource. This resolution does not speak to our domestic waters, but it speaks to global waters. We all know how destructive foreign overfishing is when destructive methods are used in marine sensitive areas.

In areas where highly sensitive marine ecosystems are known to exist and where there is scientific evidence that fishing practices are having a long term adverse effect on the ecosystem, targeted action is already taken to mitigate effects. We have taken such steps in the Lophelia conservation area, Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents and the Gully, with the full support, knowledge and cooperation of the fishing industry.

For Canada, the key to this resolution is to deploy management tools internationally that we as a country presently use within domestic Canadian waters. All stakeholders need to be a part of the solution if we are to be effective.

The resolution will be implemented inside the EEZ in a way that is acceptable to Canadian stakeholders following current practices. Outside the EEZ it is our intention to work with NAFO on the east coast and with the various regional organizations on the west coast to implement it.

Canada's position is clear. Attention should be focused on identifying and perfecting vulnerable marine ecosystems and ensuring the sustainability of the resource.

I would like to quote from the minister in a recent address to the United Nations. He said, “No specific gear type is inherently destructive...From experience, we know that all gear types can have negative impacts.”

Constitution Amendment, 2005Adjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South, NL

Mr. Speaker, in responding, the member took it for granted that we thoroughly opposed what the minister did, but not at all. As he well knows, we are much more concerned about what is happening to the fishery than the government opposite.

I have to take issue with a couple of his remarks. He said that this decision was not made in haste, yet on the record, chief government officials have told us that the wording of the resolution was changed a couple of days before the meeting. Consequently, they did not know that some of the wording would be in the resolution. That to me is making the decision in haste.

He also said that any decisions made would be done after using sound scientific advice. We do not have any.

Constitution Amendment, 2005Adjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. The UN resolution on sustainable fisheries, which was passed recently, deals with the need to combat destructive fishing practices in international waters where sensitive ecosystems exist. The resolution specifically mentions protecting seamounts, hypothermal vents and cold water corals. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is working to protect these sensitive areas in Canadian waters by closing them to fishing and other activities.

The governments in these areas work hand in hand to protect marine ecosystems, and it was on the industry's recommendation that we first explored protecting the Endeavour Hypothermal Vents off Canada's west coast. The Endeavour vents have since been designated as a marine protected area.

On behalf of Canada's Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I would like to reassure the member opposite that since this resolution generally reflects Canadian domestic practices--

Constitution Amendment, 2005Adjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

The hon. member for Charleswood--St. James--Assiniboia.

Constitution Amendment, 2005Adjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James, MB

Mr. Speaker, last night in the House I had hoped to ask the health minister about his lack of compassion for those who have not yet received compensation for hepatitis C. Unfortunately, the minister was unable to attend, so I looked forward to addressing the parliamentary secretary for health. I was surprised to find that he was not here, but the parliamentary secretary for the environment was in his stead.

Having said that, I asked a series of very good questions about hepatitis C, and the answers I got back dealt with online pharmacies. I am not sure what the connection between the two are. Perhaps the secretary could fill me in when he answers my next question. However, I find it disturbing, the lack of compassion that the Liberal Party has continually exhibited to the hepatitis C victims.

Today, I will ask some questions about flu vaccines. However, I would like to point out that be it flu vaccines, hepatitis C or many other health issues, the government seems to feel free to ignore the needs of ordinary Canadians.

With that introduction I will move on to the issue at hand.

Nobody can predict when a flu pandemic will hit. Health experts say that it is long overdue. A worldwide flu pandemic has hit every 10 to 40 years since the 16th century. There have been three in the last century, the most deadly being the Spanish flu in 1918 that killed almost 20 million people. Many believe a new virus that appeared in Hong Kong in 1997 will create the next pandemic. We have seen it move from chickens to people, and it has caused death in about 75% of those who have been infected.

There has been concern that a new flu pandemic will occur and there are already examples in Asia that threaten humans. These viruses seem to come from birds. An interesting development has occurred in the area of flu vaccination. Cornell University has announced recently that it may be possible for a major breakthrough and that a universal flu vaccine may be found.

Could the member tell us what the government is doing to improve Canada's research capabilities so we can find ways to prevent the next pandemic? Could the member could elaborate on other measures the government is taking in this regard?

Constitution Amendment, 2005Adjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

May I remind the hon. member that he is not to mention who is not in the House, whether it be today or whether it was yesterday. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

Constitution Amendment, 2005Adjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

West Nova Nova Scotia

Liberal

Robert Thibault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I do respect the admonition that you gave to the House. However, since my presence yesterday was brought up, I would like to point out to the House that I had the great pleasure of accompanying the Prime Minister to Nova Scotia yesterday to make a historic accord on funding with Nova Scotia. It was related to the offshore revenue that will greatly assist that province in meeting all commitments that it has to the people of Nova Scotia, including the areas of vaccination which of course the federal government gets involved in ensuring, with the provinces and territories, that the proper amount of vaccines are out in the country as needed.

Canada is the leading country in terms of vaccinations proportional to its population. We encourage all Canadians, especially those who are at greater risk, those who have some respiratory ailments, people over the age 65, to seek those inoculations.

The member points out our lack of concern, I believe that would be the way that he puts it, for the ordinary Canadian. I have been in public life for a long time, municipal and later in the federal government, and I have yet to meet that ordinary Canadian. I find all Canadians to be extraordinary. Those are the people that I work with all the time, 30 million extraordinary Canadians, all of them different, and all with different aspirations. We always ensure that we give them the tools that they need to meet their aspirations and keep this extraordinary country growing.

I do not look to establish big norms where everybody is the same, all families look the same, two and a half children and a dog. I recognize that extraordinary Canadians need extraordinary measures and that of course is what we do.

The member points to research and that is the crux of the important question. What do we do in vaccine research?

We have great confidence in the private sector, but we know that it needs some assistance and that is why we have health research funding, funding in other programs that we have in Industry Canada that assists in the research and developing of new products within the country. Another area is to improve our regulatory side so that we are effective and efficient. Product safety is very important.

We have seen the failings of other countries where safety has not been protected in the approval process. We want to ensure that we always protect the safety and integrity of our system, but not unduly stop the research from happening with the approvals of the drugs as they go forward.

The international issue is very important because the member was pointing out what is happening in Asia in development. We cannot do it alone and stand alone. Canada's participation in the World Health Organization, the Pan American Health Organization, assisting in the research with other countries, participating with them in their research, and the exchange of information is important so that we develop new products jointly in a timely fashion. This contributes greatly to the safety of those 30 million extraordinary Canadians that we seek to serve.

Constitution Amendment, 2005Adjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James, MB

Mr. Speaker, your point is well taken. Sometimes it is hard to tell when the Liberals are in the House and when they are not. I am really quite surprised at the response that we just heard.

The member's words echo hollow in this chamber, literally and figuratively. My question was specifically, what is Canada doing to develop a vaccine for the next pandemic and/or what are we doing to prepare for that pandemic?

I am really disappointed also that the member has creatively attached flu vaccines and hepatitis C to his trip to Nova Scotia. By the way, I have been to Nova Scotia. It is a very nice place, but I do not see the relevance to the issue at hand.

Could the member please answer my question?

Constitution Amendment, 2005Adjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that when the member was in Nova Scotia that he had a chance to visit Dalhousie University and that he saw the great work that is being done in research and development by the researchers there, using the Canada Foundation for Innovation funding, using the research chairs, and using the Canadian Institute for Health Information. All this funding, together with the private sector and in cooperation with the universities across this country, meets the challenges as suggested by the member opposite. He will see no better example of it than in Nova Scotia.

Constitution Amendment, 2005Adjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:36 p.m.)