Mike Scott

[Criminal Code, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I know my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley would like to say a few words in closing the debate.

I know my friend from Prince George-Bulkley Valley brought this bill forward in response to a very horrific accident which happened in his riding. It had very clear implications for my riding because a father and his two children were killed in an accident by a drunk driver who had previously been charged twice for the same offence.

This victim, Mr. Jim Ciccone, lived in Prince Rupert for many years. The victims of this particular accident are not just Mr. Ciccone's family, relatives and friends. It is the whole community of Prince Rupert because he and his family were well established in that community. There were very valuable members of the community, well known and well regarded. I cannot communicate how important this family was to the community.

In one thoughtless evening of drinking and driving three members of that family were killed. The people of Prince Rupert and I am sure the surviving members of the Ciccone family waited to hear what would happen as a result of this. When the sentence was announced it was three and a half years, just a little more than one year for each life that was taken by an individual who had a record of disregarding the law and driving while impaired.

What do we say to Mr. Ciccone's family when that kind of a sentence is given? Is that what their lives were worth? The question we have before us today is, are we in the House actually prepared to do something about this or are we just going to continue to talk about it while these kinds of horrific accidents take place and lives are lost?

[Criminal Code, September 17th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, when I was thinking about what I might say today in the House with my intervention, I thought I could talk about the specifics of the bill before us. There is lots to talk about there.

I thought I might even delve into some of the failures of this government over the last 15 or 20 years with respect to the criminal justice system. I thought I would start by asking this House some questions on behalf of constituents in Skeena.

During the last election when I was running for office, I encountered a lady living in Smithers whose daughter had been tracked across British Columbia by her former boyfriend and brutally stabbed to death.

This lady's other daughters have lost a sister, a very valuable member of their family. That cannot be undone. What happened to the fellow who did this? I will tell members what happened to him. He ended up spending a couple of years in jail prior to his going to court. He was found guilty and he was sentenced to 10 years.

We know that with the way the parole system works, he might be eligible for parole right now. This murder took place in 1991 or 1992 if my memory serves me right. What do I tell this lady?

She said when I was running for office: "I want you to go to Ottawa on my behalf. Get elected. I want you to do something about our criminal justice system. It has failed me and my family miserably. You have no idea of the agony that I have gone through. You have no idea of the agony that my family has gone through. It is an agony that continues. It does not go away. I want you to go to Ottawa and on my behalf and on behalf of my family and all the other Canadians who are ending up in this position do whatever you can to change it".

I will have to go back to this lady at some point. She will ask me: "What have you done?" I will have to tell her that in spite of the efforts made by me and my colleagues in the Reform Party, some of whom have worked very hard to make changes, the reality is that nothing has been done.

What do I say to the family of a commercial fisherman who was brutally beaten to death with sticks and stones? He was kicked to death by a group of young thugs in Prince Rupert last year. It made the national news. How could this happen in Canada? How is it that a group of 12, 14 and 15-year old boys could do this to somebody who represented no threat to them whatsoever and who was basically only minding his own business when this took place?

What do we say to the family of that man? What do we say to the good citizens of Prince Rupert who are looking internally in shock as to how this could happen? What are the circumstances that allow this kind of inhumane activity to take place within our society? What are we going to do about it?

Frankly, I have to go back to the people in my constituency and to the good people of Prince Rupert to tell them that the Government of Canada has not yet seen the light. It is not yet prepared to really make any serious changes.

What do I tell the young lady from Terrace who was assaulted, beaten and raped last year in Terrace in her own home in the middle of the night? Her assailant was brought before the courts. He was sentenced to two years in jail. Now barely more than a year later he is eligible and at this time is very likely out on parole and no doubt is fully free to go back into the community of Terrace and live within the community where he actually perpetrated the offence. This led to a huge demonstration in the community this summer which I attended where people spoke out and not only expressed their disgust at this turn of events but also demanded change.

Those people at that rally stood there and committed their time and the time of their families to show solidarity with the community to make those demands for change. Now I have to go back to them and tell them what the government has done. The government pretends to care. It pretends to be contemplating serious change to the criminal justice system. But the reality is it tinkered with the Young Offenders Act. It made some minor changes. It tinkered with the parole and criminal justice system. It made some minor changes such as the bill we are dealing with today. And in a most cynical manoeuvre it inflicted a gun control bill known as Bill C-68 on the Canadian populace, the likes of which we have never seen, in an effort to persuade Canadians that it was serious about actually doing something about our criminal justice system.

The reality is the government is a do nothing government when it comes to the criminal justice system. It has no real intention of changing the way the system operates. It has no real intention of demanding accountability. It has no real intention of putting the rights of victims ahead of criminals. In short, it has no real intention of doing anything constructive in this area.

Members can bet that I am going to go back to my constituents and tell them what took place here on the floor of the House of Commons. I am going to tell them that the legislation which was introduced by this Parliament during the time I have been their elected representative was nothing short of tinkering and that the bleeding heart Liberals still do not get it. They do not understand that they are off side with a majority of Canadians who want change now and who are serious about it.

I heard some of the interventions which were made here yesterday by members opposite that the government is still more concerned about rehabilitation. It is still more concerned about the rights of the criminals, the rights of the perpetrators, than about the rights of victims. I am going to tell my constituents that the record of this government on criminal justice and on the rights of victims and their families is nothing short of abysmal. It is a disgrace. It is a national disgrace and the people opposite should hang their heads in shame. They can bet that I will be carrying this message forth in the next election.

[Oceans Act, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, following on the words of my colleague, when we look at these motions they deal with principles: the principle of fairness, the principle of efficiency, and the principle of cost effectiveness.

Last year the coast guard announced to the Canadian shipping industry and ports that it was going to start charging fees for services that heretofore had been paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.

The Reform Party and I believe in the concept and principle of user pay. It is not right that Canadian taxpayers living in Winnipeg, Calgary, Thunder Bay, or in Vancouver for that matter, should be subsidizing Canada's shipping industry any more than they should be subsidizing any other industry. In principle, we believe the government is going in the right direction.

There is a serious problem with this legislation. We on this side of the House would like to be able to support this legislation but if these amendments cannot be passed by the House, I fear we will not be able to support it. The powers granted to the minister under this legislation are so broad and there is no provision for accountability that down the road regulations can be changed at whim.

The minister does not even have to go through the process of gazetting. He does not have to go through the process he currently is required to go through in order to raise additional money. We fear that in the future there will be a powerful temptation on the

part of whoever is fulfilling the role of Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to use this legislation to raise additional money.

That is why we view these amendments and this part of the regulations, sections 81 through 89, as important. We believe strongly that this is a window of opportunity to ensure for all time that any future changes to the regulations with respect to fees for services the coast guard may charge will have to be dealt with fairly and up front, in a manner that is going to require Parliament's perusal.

The way it is set up now, unless these amendments are adopted, there is no requirement for scrutiny down the road. There is no requirement for any future changes to come back to the House or to come back to the standing committee. There is no requirement for any kind of review. We argue strongly that this is wrong in principle. It does not provide anything for the shippers and the people who depend on the shipping industry.

We on the standing committee heard witnesses from coast to coast telling us about their concerns with this new fee for service. They talked about the viability of their businesses. They were not in the shipping industry, but were people involved in the oil and gas business, people involved in the aggregate business, people involved in other bulk products such as iron ore, grain, lumber and coal. We heard from all these people. They have real concerns about how viable their businesses are going to be down the road as the government moves to higher and higher user fees.

Each and every witness who appeared before the committee said that before the coast guard implemented user fees, it ought to be able to justify those fees on the basis that the services it is providing are actually priced at fair market values. It should be able to justify that the services it is providing are actually services the customers want and need and that they are being delivered efficiently.

The parliamentary secretary knows there are many instances where witnesses appeared before the committee and said: "You are proposing to charge us for something that we can do ourselves for far less cost. We are willing to take that responsibility on. We will go out and service that navigational aid. We will go out and look after our own ice breaking. We will go out and look after it ourselves. We do not need the government to do it. We do not need the coast guard to do it".

The people who are being forced to pay the user fees ought to have that opportunity and that right. With the way the legislation now reads, there is no requirement on the part of the government or on the part of the minister to sit down and negotiate a deal with these people in good faith.

A hue and cry went from one end of the coast to the other after the coast guard announced its intent to collect a user fee last year. I

would suggest that there has been a fair bit of movement on the part of the coast guard to take into consideration the concerns of many of the people we heard at the standing committee and this is a good thing.

However this legislation is our window of opportunity. It is our way of guaranteeing as parliamentarians that Canada's shippers and shipping industry are not going to be faced with costs down the road that they will have no opportunity to address and which parliamentarians will have no opportunity to review.

I represent a riding that has a significant marine shipping industry. There could be changes to the regulations that we as parliamentarians may never know about unless the affected bodies complain to us. That is no way to run the country. For us to say: "We can do as we like until people yell and complain at such a level that we obviously have to stand back and take a different approach", is no way to govern the country and no way to change or enact regulations.

In closing, these amendments are important to the Reform Party. We would like to be able to support the bill. We would like to say: "In principle the oceans act is a good bill. There are still some things we would like to see changed but on balance we can support it". However unless we get the motions passed that demand some accountability from the minister, the department and the commissioner of the coast guard, I fear we cannot support the legislation.

Recently we found out that boaters from one end of the country to the other-never mind people who depend on the shipping industry-but boaters are going to be forced to pay a registration fee. If a person owns a rowboat or a canoe an annual fee will have to be paid to the government. For what?

These matters have to be debated in the House Commons and the standing committee. Right now they are not. Some bureaucrat on Kent Street dreams up a regulation and says: "This is where we can make more money. We can tag those guys. We have not tagged them before". In essence it becomes a hidden tax and it is passed without any scrutiny, without any accountability. In some instances parliamentarians are not even aware of it.

We insist that these amendments be passed. If they are not passed, the Reform Party cannot support the legislation.

[Oceans Act, June 12th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 44, on page 30, with the following:

"(2) The Minister shall, within 30 days after fixing or amending a fee under this Act, publish the fee in the Canada Gazette by such appropriate electronic or other means that the Treasury Board may authorize by regulation. A subsequent period of 90 days shall be allowed from the date of publishing in the Canada Gazette before implementing the fee or an amended fee. The text of the Marine Advisory Board's recommendation shall be included in the published announcement, together with a clear illustration of the justification for the new fee."

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by adding after line 44, on page 30, the following:

"(3) Any interested person who has reason to believe that the proposed fee is not fair and equitable may file notice of objection with the Minister no later than 30 days after the publication of the proposed fee.

(4) Where a notice of objection is filed, the Minister shall appoint a person to investigate whether the charging of the proposed fee is fair and equitable. The person so appointed shall report to the Minister within 60 days and the Minister shall, by order, approve or amend the proposed fee. The Minister's decision together with the report shall be published in the Canada Gazette with immediate effect, namely at the end of the original 90 day period as specified in subsection 50(2)."

[Oceans Act, June 12th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-26, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 13, on page 30, with the following:

"(2) Fees for a service or the use of a facility that are fixed under subsection (1) shall not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the specific service or the use of the facility to each beneficiary, within the specific marine sector within the specific geographical marine environment in which the service is delivered."

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 21, on page 30, the following new Clause:

"48.1 Fees in respect of products, rights and privileges fixed under clause 48 shall not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the specific product, rights and privileges to each beneficiary, within the specific marine sector within the specific geographical marine environment in which the product, rights and privileges are delivered."

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-26, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 35, on page 30, with the following:

"(2) Fees that are fixed under subsection (1) shall not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the specific service or the use of the facility to each beneficiary, within the specific marine sector within the specific geographical marine environment in which the service is delivered."

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 39, on page 30, with the following:

"50(1) Before fixing a fee under this Act, the Minister shall consult with all beneficiaries, according to stipulations in subsection 41(2). In this context a recommendation shall be sought from the Marine Advisory Board to the Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard."

[Oceans Act, June 12th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, this bill is divided into three major sections. Part III, with which we are dealing now, describes the powers of the minister. The amendments in this group, and many of the amendments being proposed in other groupings dealing with part III, describe limits to the minister's power.

Motions Nos. 76, 78, 80 and 82 limit the minister's power. These amendments state that any changes to the regulations with respect to fees or other parts of the bill must be debated in the House of Commons for three hours prior to being enforced or enacted.

I cannot see any reason why the House would not support these amendments. I commend my friend, the hon. member for Gaspé, for moving them. When we seek to limit the power of government, we end up doing Canadians a service.

I am not saying that the minister is not acting in good faith or not trying to do the best job he or she can, whoever the minister of the day is, but it is important that there are limitations on the minister's powers.

In this case, if the minister chooses by regulation to increase or change the fee structure, it will be debated in the House for three hours. That will give Canadians and their representatives an opportunity to have some discussion before it takes place. Frankly, I cannot see any reason why the House would not support these amendments. Certainly Reform will be supporting them.

Reform will not be supporting Motion No. 88 because it proposes that the standing committee would be the body to fix fees in the future. I do not have a great deal of parliamentary experience but I do not believe that standing committees are used in any other areas to fix fees. I do not believe it is appropriate for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to be fixing fees with respect to regulations in this legislation.

It is appropriate for the standing committee to review changes to regulations. I am certainly in favour of having the fee regulation process opened up so that everybody can see how it works and provide their input prior to the changes being made.

However, I do not see the standing committee being the body to actually draft the regulatory changes or make the changes to fee structures and so on in the future. I simply do not believe that the standing committee is the appropriate body to do that.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, in Motion No. 70 we want to ensure that services provided by the minister shall be provided in the most cost effective manner possible. The level and scope of such services as well as the manner of their delivery shall be defined in full ongoing consultation with all beneficiaries.

After listening to the parliamentary secretary's intervention I fail to see how anybody could find this offensive. I think it is offensive to those people who will be required to pay fees for services to be required to do so without consultation. When the coast guard last year announced it was to impose a fee for service that is exactly what happened. We heard a hue and cry from one end of the country to the other as a result.

The coast guard initially maintained it was in consultation with shippers and ports across Canada. I know there are members present today who were sitting on the standing committee, the member for Gaspé and the parliamentary secretary, who heard testimony from witnesses from Halifax, from the port of Montreal, from the port of St. John's, from the port of Vancouver. They told the standing committee they had not been properly consulted.

Let us put this into perspective. We are not talking about a small amount of money. In the current year the coast guard, effective June 1 of this year, is intending to collect $20 million from shippers across Canada and from ports. It intends to escalate that to $40 million in 1997, $40 million in 1998 and $60 million in 1999.

We have with this legislation a window of opportunity. We have the opportunity to ensure the minister and the department cannot unilaterally impose fees for services without consultation and without being able to justify that the services they are providing are actually required by the people who will pay for them, that they are being delivered in a cost effective and that they are being delivered in consultation with those people who will have to pay the bill.

Let me lay out the scenario as it took place in 1995-96. Largely due to the fact that the Treasury Board has told the coast guard its budget is to be reduced, it will have to get by with less money or will have to raise more money on its own, the coast guard decided it would raise an additional $20 million in 1996.

It came up with a plan that would have seen a national rate imposed right across the country. It did not relate the imposition of this user fee to any services it was actually providing. Until very recently we have not been able to get much information out of the coast guard as to how much the services it is providing actually cost because the coast guard has not been able to identify them. It has not been able to identify until very recently what services are actually required.

One good thing that has come out of the round of consultations, which is largely the result of the work of the standing committee its members who have insisted there be a great deal more fairness injected into the equation, is that we now have ports on the west coast which have agreed finally that the coast guard is starting to go in the right direction in terms of how it will impose these fees.

Therefore we view this legislation as a window of opportunity to ensure there is accountability, to ensure the minister and the department cannot impose fees without consultation and without being able to justify they are delivering the services the end users are getting in a cost effective manner.

The only thing I find offensive is the suggestion the minister ought to have this power without any accountability whatsoever.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-26, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 12, on page 27, with the following:

"(2) In accordance to the stipulations contained in subsection 47(2), clause 48.1 and subsection 49(2), services under subparagraphs 41(1)( a )(i)to (iv) shall be provided in the most cost effective manner possible. The level and scope of such services, as well as the manner of their delivery, shall be defined in full, ongoing, consultation with all beneficiaries.''

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

The Japanese.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we concur with Motion No. 65. We believe the minister and the enforcement officers need the power under legislation to enforce the act and to ensure that Canada's marine areas are protected to the fullest extent.

The member for Gander-Grand Falls raised an interesting point in his earlier intervention which I will follow up on. It is very counterproductive to have regulations with respect to the requirement of Canadians to obey the law and not to violate the sections of the act we are dealing with.

What happens when Canadians are held to one standard and foreign nationals are held to a completely different standard? I concur with the member's observations with respect to the food fishing that is taking place right now in Atlantic Canada.

For Newfoundlanders it is an offence to go out and catch fish to feed their families. Three miles away in St. Pierre and Miquelon not only is it not an offence, but they are bringing in tourists to catch the same fish. It is ludicrous. If Newfoundlanders have the temerity to go more than three miles off coast and into the waters around St. Pierre and Miquelon, they can catch fish as well without facing the fear of being apprehended, arrested or charged by DFO officers.

We agree with the intent and that there has to be adequate enforcement regulations and legislation within the act. However we question where the government is going when there is one set of standards for people in Newfoundland, another set of standards for people in Gaspé, a different set of standards for people in Nova Scotia, and another one for tourists coming from Europe to fish and to visit St. Pierre and Miquelon.

It is very difficult for Canadians to feel good about the act and to feel that it will do what they would like to see it do when they see this ongoing double standard taking place.

Hopefully with pressure the minister will recognize the failure of the policy he is currently following and will back away from it. Certainly that is the intent we will be pursuing over the next days and weeks.