Loyola Hearn

[Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, April 18th, 2002]

The member from Prince Edward Island knows all about bull but I will not get into that right now.

We must show leadership. We have to show leadership. How can we do it? In this case, if we believe in something then let us not be afraid to show it.

[Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand and support the motion put forth by the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie.

I am extremely confused. I listened to the parliamentary secretary and I thought she made a tremendous argument for Canada's signing of the convention. It is amazing to hear both speakers from the other side talk very strongly about the importance of recognizing the fact that we must oppose torture and that Canada is extremely supportive of the convention, but yet we refuse to sign.

The convention itself was created at the 15th regular session of the general assembly of the Organization of American States. The spirit of the OAS convention to prevent and punish torture reinforces the charter of the United Nations and the universal declaration of human rights. The convention reaffirms that all acts of torture or any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment constitute an offence against human dignity and a denial of the principles set forth in the charter of the OAS and the charter of the UN. Members opposite state that they are very supportive of all of these declarations.

As I get to see more of Canada's involvement in different conventions and international organizations, I wonder if we do not have a bunch of bureaucrats who travel the world, sit in on all these conventions and then come back and spend their time trying to tell us why we cannot be active participants within the different regimes. We heard this from foreign affairs and international trade officials in relation to our involvement in taking jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Now we hear about this wonderful convention that we support so heavily, but if we believe in it, why can we not sign on the dotted line?

I know what answer we will hear. We will hear that current Canadian criminal law accounts for the American convention to prevent and punish torture and therefore ratification may be considered redundant. Certainly, yes, if we agree with everything and protection is already in our laws, why should we sign on? The question is, why should we not? What difference does it make? If we are supportive of an international agreement, surely by being a signatory and showing some leadership within the organization and having some control and a say in events, we could have a lot more impact in handling this extremely important issue throughout the world.

Just last year in a country across the ocean a young lady was sentenced to be caned. This became an international issue. In fact, of all the issues I have faced since my involvement in politics at either level, I have never had as much correspondence as I had on this one. It created such an awareness among people. People realized that in this world of ours, where most of us live in peace and harmony, people are tortured and are punished cruelly and inhumanly. All of us in the House objected to that caning.

However, we have to put our money where our mouths are. Here we agree with the convention, but yet we are coming up with all kinds of excuses not to be a signatory. In this day and age, dealing with torture is extremely important. We are living in a changing world. The world today is not the world that you and I grew up in, Mr. Speaker. It is not even the world that the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie grew up in. The world is changing.

We see and hear daily reports of torture, of inhumane punishment and of bullying, which certainly is a form of mental torture. How do we deal with that? We deal with that by, as the old saying goes, taking the bull by the tail, and, in a case like this, by showing some leadership, by standing up--

[Species at Risk Act, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the parliamentary secretary talk about the bill it would seem everyone in the House is saying what a wonderful piece of legislation it is. It could be if the government listened to the recommendations made by a number of members on both sides of the House, in committee and otherwise. The basis of the bill is good but a number of the clauses are not.

There are two ways of looking at the issue. First, we could look at the bill itself with its strengths and weaknesses. Second, we could look at what a piece of legislation like it is supposed to do. In looking at the second part we should question how well the government would look after species at risk. Would it only panic when a species was in such a state that recovery was impossible? What would the government do to identify species that were potentially at risk to make sure they did not reach the critical stage?

I will look at the issue both ways, starting with a look at the bill itself. There are a few clauses in Bill C-5 that cause tremendous concern. First, there is concern about the government's commitment to look after species on land the government controls. The government's commitment in this regard is weak and not clear at all. However that is the typical commitment of the present government.

Second, the people who own land on which we find species determined to be at risk have a lot of concerns about this piece of legislation. There is absolutely nothing in it to guarantee they would be compensated for any portions of their land. In some areas significant portions of their land could be designated as habitat for certain species.

Let us imagine we have a nice piece of farmland anywhere in the country on which we have nice ponds where we like to walk, swim or boat. Let us imagine a nice country cottage overlooking a lake with lawns and pasture land. We get a knock on the door and a guy says the words we always fear: “I am from the government and I am here to help”. He tells us we have a beautiful piece of land and there is a valuable resource on it: a species at risk. We say that is wonderful. Then the government official proceeds to tell us that because it is a species at risk and the habitat cannot be disturbed we can no longer control our own piece of property.

Unless we get clear and distinct definitions as to what compensation would be available for land declared an area of protected habitat, it would be foolish for anyone in the House to support such a piece of legislation. It would leave constituents across the country holding the bag. It would allow the government to take credit for protecting species when doing so at someone else's expense.

There are several other problems in the bill including the review process. However I will come to the other side of the issue: What would the government do to protect species that were potentially at risk?

I am glad to see we are joined by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He knows better than anyone in the House that in the waters over which he has jurisdiction, and perhaps in waters slightly outside his jurisdiction, there are species that are certainly at risk. One of the ones we have not yet talked about a lot is the Atlantic salmon.

In his own province of Nova Scotia and certainly in Newfoundland and Labrador and other areas there are many groups and agencies very concerned about the environment and the fisheries, They are concerned about the potential this fisheries provides for the economy of the region, both in commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries, and in keeping the species alive as a basis of sustainable development.

One of the things each group mentioned as we talked to them about the future of the stocks, particularly Atlantic salmon, is the effect of the growing seal herds on species of fish, whether they be trout or salmon. We ran across this as the fisheries committee visited Nova Scotia and we have seen it in Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to not only salmon but cod stocks as well.

The seal herds have multiplied tremendously and are certainly not at risk. However the species upon which they feed are at risk. If six or seven million seals eat one pound of fish a day, that is 365 days multiplied by one, multiplied by six or seven million. Imagine the amount of fish being eaten. Multiply that by 40 and the amount is horrendous. We cannot have sustainable development of our cod and salmon stocks or other fish in the ocean unless we control other species that are growing above and beyond the accepted norm.

Seals are now seen around river mouths where they have never been seen before and eating salmon going up the river to spawn and smaller salmon coming down. In the spring and through the summer there are numerous seals in these regions. That is providing a major concern and certainly one the minister will have to deal with.

The FRCC in its report released a couple of days ago talked about the cod stocks in the gulf. This affects the member's province and my province as well. The seal herd was again highlighted as a problem.

I am sure others will pick up the challenge of informing the government to change the legislation to ensure it is acceptable for the majority of people in the country.

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister as well as I know all of this has been a complete and total flop. When the Minister for International Trade dropped the ball on the softwood lumber file, the Prime Minister stepped in.

Will the Prime Minister now step into this very important issue and exert his power to convince international countries to live by the rules or else declare custodial management over the total continental shelf?

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has only one surveillance vessel to cover the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. No wonder so many abuses are taking place.

In light of the fact that $100 million is being wasted on Challengers we do not need, has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans requested some of that money for new surveillance vessels that are really needed?

[Copyright Act, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak briefly on this matter. The comments made by the previous speaker are very appropriate, particularly when they are coming from somebody who is directly involved in the issue, who is aware of it, who undoubtedly has been the beneficiary of royalties at times and who perhaps has been questioned many more times about whether she really got her share of royalties. I also happened to have some of my works recorded and I am aware of some of the problems.

Section 30.8 of the Copyright Act deals with ephemeral recordings made for broadcast purposes and when it is not an infringement of copyright to produce them. Subsection 30.8(8) deals with the application of this section and states:

This section does not apply where a licence is available from a collective society to make the fixation or reproduction of the performer's performance, work or sound recording.

Section 30.9 deals with the use of pre-recording for broadcast, again when it is not an infringement of copyright to produce. Subsection 30.9(6) deals with application and states:

This section does not apply if a licence is available from a collective society to reproduce the sound recording, performer's performance or work.

Therefore, removing these two sections would remove the copyright protection inherent in licensing regimes that the exceptions in subsections 30.8(8) and 30.9(6) give and would remove the compensation to copyright holders for these recordings.

Many of our artists throughout this great country of ours try to make a living producing their works. Their only hope of gaining benefits from this work is in the royalties that they are paid. If a large broadcasting company is given free rein to pay for a licence to make a recording but is then allowed to re-record and ship to all affiliates, the material could be used, but the producer of the work, the artist or the writer, would only receive royalty on one piece of material or for having it used once. That is extremely unfair and that is something that many are concerned about.

The proposer of the motion, the member for Kootenay--Columbia, in January actually asked the minister with respect to the Copyright Act if subsections 30.8(8) and 30.9(6) allow for royalties to be collected upon transfer of medium, and if not, why not?

The minister responded, and it is very difficult to understand sometimes what is really being said, that subsections 30.8(8) and 30.9(6):

provide that where a collective society can issue a licence to broadcasters for the purpose of reproductions of sound recordings, such as transfer of media, royalties are paid pursuant to the licence.

One of the concerns from the broadcasters' point of view is that if they are to pay royalties by using the material, that is fair ball, but if they have to pay royalties by transfer of recording, whether it be from tape to the different types of digital media that are used, then if they have to pay royalties each time transfers are made it is very unfair to the producers.

It is a complicated issue. The position of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency is that such a recording exemption, removing the two sections in question, will allow broadcasters to cut overhead and staff because they can reduce work by just copying the material and sending it out to the various networks instead of each network having to use the material and produce it for its own purposes. The artists and copyright holders in this case would not be compensated. We also argue that since this practice has value for the broadcasters it requires compensation for the creators also.

During the 2000 federal election our party mentioned that we would introduce new copyright legislation which would serve both the creators of content and the broadcasters and publishers. The former speaker made a very interesting point in relation to this. If the charges become excessive, even though the artist, the original creator, will benefit more it might be a detriment for the use of that material. If the amount a broadcaster or agency that plays or uses material coming from a creator has to pay to exercise the right to use that material is excessive, then of course they will refrain from using it, from playing it on the radio or whatever. The loser in this case is the creator. The former speaker's comment was not exactly that half a loaf is better than none, but that a reasonable charge would make it beneficial for everybody. I think that is what we have to keep in mind when we talk about increasing rates.

The current government has neglected key areas of concern, including the management of the impact of digital media and the Internet on intellectual property rights. Therein are the causes of some of the problems we face. It is important that we ensure that copyright holders are fairly compensated for their work. The provisions in the Copyright Act allow for collective agencies, such as the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency, to collect on behalf of artists, songwriters and composers. It is only reasonable that broadcasters should pay a reasonable fee as compensation for use of an artist's work, but there has to be a happy medium, as I mentioned. We have to be very careful with what we do here because sometimes, as the old saying goes, we can throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on this historic day, a day on which we all enjoyed having the Olympians here with us in this very theatre, I look around and see many people who were heavily involved in sports in the past.

My colleague mentioned young people imitating their heroes and becoming great athletes. I know some who probably looked at their heroes who were referees and went the other way and became good hockey players, but we cannot blame them for that .

In the presence of the minister responsible for HRDC, I would like to ask my colleague a question. He talked about the need for facilities. In recent years there have been many cutbacks, especially at the provincial levels, and many of the smaller communities in rural Canada are finding it difficult to create and maintain facilities.

One of the agencies, which perhaps did not receive the credit it deserved in the past, is the Department of Human Resources Development Canada whose labour component has created many facilities throughout the country.

In light of the cutbacks in areas where capital has been provided in the past, does my colleague think the department should be encouraged to continue promoting and supporting sports and creating sports facilities throughout the country? We often criticize but we must also give credit where credit is due. Without the help of the minister's department many good, solid local facilities would not exist.

[Fisheries, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister constantly defends the indefensible, NAFO. He says there was no illegal fishing involved with the boat.

When well over half the catch was still in an unprocessed state, where did the fish come from to make 80,000 pounds of fishmeal when one-half million pounds of raw material will be required to create such an amount of finished product?

[Fisheries, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans practically accused me of lying to the House in relation to the cargo of fish landed in Newfoundland by the Russian trawler Tynda . I presume the minister has now seen the manifest. I have a copy.

I ask him, how long can Canada sit back and see redfish the size of one's thumb, turbot the size of a coke bottle and species such as cod and American plaice which are under moratorium being scooped up by foreign trawlers while our plants are closed and Canadians are unemployed?

[Points of Order, April 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if you would check today's Hansard during question period I believe you would find that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in response to a question I asked, stated that I knew the statement I was making was untrue.

I feel that response was unparliamentary. I also know it certainly was not untrue and the minister knows it was not untrue. When I raised a similar point last week the minister also thought it was untrue until he found out differently, as he will find tomorrow that this statement is very true.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to look at Hansard and I am sure you will agree that the minister should repeal the statement he made.