Lynn Myers

[Division No. 61, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this very important Nisga'a treaty. It is historic and one that all Canadians will benefit from as a result of the movement of this government and I believe rightfully so.

Because the Nisga'a agreement is an important page in Canada's history, I would like to take this opportunity to set out some of the facts surrounding this very important legislation. Perhaps even in the process I will correct some of the myths perpetuated by the Reform Party, including the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

First and foremost I must stress that the Nisga'a treaty was negotiated within the constitutional framework of Canada. Everything done in the treaty was done in keeping with the constitution just as it is.

For example, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. However, we do not know precisely the nature, scope or extent of these rights. In many circumstances unresolved claims of aboriginal rights have hindered economic development. Accordingly a number of cases have been brought before the courts in Canada in an effort to define aboriginal rights.

Through these court decisions we have learned a great deal about aboriginal rights but not enough to resolve once and for all the disputes arising from continuing claims of aboriginal people. In the most recent cases for example dealing with the existence and nature of aboriginal rights in British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada found that in the absence of treaties, lands in that province may be subject to aboriginal title.

Most important is the fact that the courts have told us that aboriginal rights are group and site specific. That means that wherever the courts consider issues concerning aboriginal rights, the courts do so in the context of the particular facts presented and in consideration of the particular group before them. Accordingly, while some general principles can be drawn from current case law, we cannot yet rely upon court decisions to make conclusions about aboriginal rights that would apply to all locations in Canada or in British Columbia.

Given that some court cases on aboriginal rights might take as many as 10 years to resolve and that they may not resolve issues in all locations, imagine how long it would take and how expensive it would be to resolve all outstanding aboriginal issues in British Columbia in this manner. It is unthinkable quite frankly. We must all keep in mind that in all these instances, these court outcomes might not be palatable to everyone or for that matter, to anyone.

The government agrees with the courts that negotiation rather than litigation is a better way to resolve outstanding aboriginal rights issues. Besides, while litigation is adversarial and may not lead to good relationships, negotiations do lead to mutually agreeable solutions and better relationships. That is the Canadian way. Unfortunately that is something the Reform Party has yet not understood.

In Canada the historic practice of negotiation and resolution of outstanding aboriginal rights issues is called treaty making. As in the case of existing aboriginal rights, the rights contained in treaties are also recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Although treaties covering much of Canada were concluded prior to 1927, in British Columbia this process was never completed. The Nisga'a treaty is the first modern treaty to be concluded in British Columbia. It resolves once and for all the Nisga'a outstanding claims of aboriginal rights including land and resources and self-government. This is something we truly can and will celebrate.

In 1995, Hon. Ronald Irwin made public the Government of Canada's approach to the implementation of the inherent right and the negotiation of aboriginal self-government. The approach he presented reflects an evolution in thinking that stretches over a long period of time.

For decades the citizens of Canada have been trying to find ways to reconcile the prior occupation of the country by aboriginal people with the sovereignty of the crown. Long before the arrival of Europeans, aboriginal people lived in this country and looked after their own affairs. First nations in British Columbia and elsewhere enjoyed existing governance and social systems.

Existing aboriginal rights are recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The 1995 federal inherent right policy recognizes that those section 35 rights include a right to self-government and that Canada is prepared to negotiate workable and practical self-government agreements and include them in treaties. There are different views about the scope and content of the inherent right, as in the case of other aboriginal rights, but this government has chosen to resolve self-government issues through the negotiation of practical arrangements within the context of our constitutional framework and legal framework.

Allow me to explain briefly how a negotiated resolution of claimed aboriginal rights to self-government works within the current constitutional context.

The Constitution Act, 1867 defines the lawmaking powers of federal and provincial governments. These are set out primarily in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The scope of any aboriginal right in self-government may vary from community to community and accordingly to the circumstances of the various first nations. Consequently the aboriginal right of self-government under section 35 must be considered on a case by case basis.

That is what happened in the case of the Nisga'a. The Nisga'a final agreement does not only set out all the land and resource related rights that the Nisga'a will have under section 35 of the constitution act, it also identifies the self-government rights the Nisga'a will have under the same section of the constitution. The Nisga'a treaty will not alter the federal and provincial heads of power as set out in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Some have charged that the Nisga'a final agreement creates a de facto third order of government that requires a constitutional amendment. The meaning of third order of government is not clear. What is clear, however, is that the Nisga'a final agreement works and that it works within the current constitutional framework.

The protection of section 35 rights under our constitution does not mean those rights are set out in constitutional concrete as some critics claim. Although section 35 rights are protected, they are not absolute. A number of Supreme Court of Canada decisions have confirmed that governments still retain an overall authority but must justify any interference with aboriginal or treaty rights.

The Nisga'a government will clearly operate within the Canadian constitutional framework. Anyone who has read the Nisga'a final agreement knows that the charter of rights and freedoms will apply to Nisga'a government. This means the Nisga'a laws will be subject to the charter as will Nisga'a government decisions, for example, in issuing permits or selling land. The Nisga'a government will be subject to the charter just as all other governments are as well.

At the risk of repeating what has been said many times before, federal and provincial laws such as the criminal code will apply on Nisga'a lands once the treaty comes into effect. While in certain limited circumstances Nisga'a laws may prevail, there will be no exclusive Nisga'a law-making powers. This is a current model of law-making and important to note.

Nisga'a laws will only prevail for matters internal to the Nisga'a themselves, for example, laws relating to their culture, their language, the management of their land and their assets. In all other cases either federal and provincial laws prevail or the Nisga'a law must meet or exceed existing federal or provincial standards in order to be valid. It would be clear to anyone who closely examines it that the Nisga'a treaty works within the current framework of the Canadian constitution.

Perhaps those who argue that the Nisga'a final agreement cannot be given full effect without first amending the Constitution of Canada just do not understand the process and do not understand the value of a negotiated reconciliation of aboriginal rights within the Canadian federation. Perhaps they wish they could unilaterally impose their own arbitrary solutions. We on the government side prefer negotiation and reconciliation. After all, this is the Canadian way.

We all know where unilateral decisions would lead us. We have seen solutions imposed by one group on to another throughout history. Where possible lasting arrangements are best achieved when they are negotiated by all those who live by them. The Nisga'a treaty is one of these negotiated settlements.

I would urge all members of the House to leave the spurious, mean-spirited arguments behind, especially those of the Reform Party. I just do not understand why Reform insists on pitting people against people, group against group, region against region. It is not in keeping with the Canadian way. It is not what Canadians want.

I would ask that all members of the House move very expeditiously to pass this very important and historic treaty. I know that good judgment will prevail and that we will ensure the right thing is done. That is after all in keeping with what Canadians want, with what is good for Canada, and we will prevail in this matter.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman opposite for his question. It seems to me that what the motion today is saying is that by referring the motion to the justice and human rights committee we should analyze the legislative avenues open to parliament to fight against the activities of criminal organizations and then report back to the House.

If the question is, should we take a look at the variety of options available to the committee and ultimately to parliament and all parliamentarians, it seems to me that we should. We should take a look at the kinds of things that we as a society and we as parliamentarians should do in order to curtail criminal activity wherever it may be in this great land of ours.

As a former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police, I can tell the House first hand that police services across our great country need parliament's assistance in this very important area. The government has done many things over the last number of years to enact the kinds of legislation that are necessary to give the police the kinds of measures they need in order to carry out their function in society, all of which enables us to live in more safe and secure communities wherever they may be in Canada.

I look forward to the report of the standing committee in this very important area. I know that under the leadership of the chairperson, who is a very capable individual, that is precisely what will be done. The committee will report back to the House in a very meaningful way and give parliament and, by extension, all Canadians the kinds of necessary analysis and tools that will help us to ensure that criminal activity is curtailed in Canada.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of the motion to ask the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study the issue of organized crime and analyze the legislative avenues open to parliament to fight against activities of criminal organizations.

I have 10 years experience in police service. As the former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police, I find this of particular interest. It is certainly one where all Canadians look for leadership from their federal government to ensure our communities, wherever they are in this great country, are safe and secure for themselves and their children.

Public concern over organized crime is not limited to any one part of Canada. The RCMP reports that there are biker gang activities and criminal enterprises in several parts of this country. Indeed, the gang problem goes far beyond outlaw biker groups. In addition to biker gangs, there is a host of organized crime groups that operate and prey upon the weak in their own communities and on Canadian society. That is unacceptable.

It is commonly known that organized crime is actively involved in trafficking in illegal drugs. Last summer all of Canada saw firsthand how organized criminal snakeheads were callously smuggling Chinese people on rusty old ships to our shores. This is unacceptable as well. It is perhaps less well known that they are also involved in environmental crime, like illicit waste treatment and disposal, trade in endangered species and ozone depleting substances. They are involved in economic crime like white collar crime, for example, such as security fraud and telemarketing fraud. We also know that they are involved in the sale of counterfeit products, in violation of intellectual property rights and software piracy, money laundering and motor vehicle theft for export or for parts.

There are those who claim that the police are powerless to fight organized crime. Some argue that the police need more money. Others argue that they need less. I think we should find out what the facts are in this case.

It has been two years since parliament considered and enacted any gang legislation. The provisions contained in Bill C-95 originated in discussions with the police community and other members of the justice system in September 1996 when the then minister of justice and the solicitor general held a national forum on organized crime. This event brought together representatives from the police community, the federal and a number of provincial governments, the legal community, private industry and academics to examine the increasingly complex problem of organized crime in Canada and to recommend integrated and effective measures to address it. Participants examined the feasibility of legislation that would provide new tools to the police, prosecutors and courts to combat organized crime.

We must recall another factor that led to the enactment of Bill C-95, and that is the public's revulsion at the violent events associated with a turf war between two rival biker gangs, the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine in Quebec, in which not only members of the gang but also innocent bystanders were tragically affected.

The legislation that followed Bill C-95 enacted new powers in relation to the interception of private communication, proceeds of crime and property used to commit offences and other things. It also outlined for the first time in Canadian criminal law a definition of a criminal organization and created a new offence of participation in a criminal organization offence. This legislation has been in force now for two years.

This may seem like a long period of time to some, but I understand that a typically complex organized crime investigation takes several years to progress to the point where charges are laid. In fact, I know that to be the case.

Nevertheless, some of these investigations directed at criminal organizations using the tools provided in Bill C-95 have now been completed. Charges have been laid and prosecutions are proceeding. Indeed, there have been convictions. Reports have appeared in the media in recent weeks regarding some of these prosecutions, notably in the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta.

It is important, however, to ensure that the provisions of Bill C-95 are well understood. Not every case is appropriately pursued as a criminal organization investigation or a prosecution. It is not intended to be the only tool used to combat organized crime. It is built on the tools already available in the criminal code and responded in particular to investigative and prosecutorial challenges posed by criminal organizations. These are specialized tools in that sense.

Justice officials have been working in co-operation with the solicitor general's department to provide training to police and prosecutors regarding the contents of the criminal organization legislation. Justice officials have provided full day and half day training sessions across the country to over 500 members of the provincial and federal police and prosecution services.

Law enforcement must be careful to ensure that powerful but integrate powers provided for in legislation are not used inappropriately or unnecessarily.

The committee may want to assess the extent to which the provisions are being used and their effectiveness. If there are ways to improve upon the manner in which the legislation is used, we should facilitate the sharing of these best practices. If there are improvements in the legislation that could be considered, we should assess them collectively.

In another area of organized crime, combating telemarketing fraud remains a priority for the Government of Canada, in particular within the context of its organized crime agenda.

Since the 1997 binational report, Canada in partnership with the United States has made significant strides in combating cross-border telemarketing fraud. The major legislative developments include Bill C-20, which recently added the new offence of deceptive telemarketing to the Competition Act.

It also includes Bill C-51, which amended the criminal code to link the new deceptive telemarketing offences in the Competition Act to the criminal code scheme authorizing the seizure and forfeiture of proceeds of crime for enterprise crime offences. This amendment now allows the significant proceeds generated by many telemarketing schemes to be captured.

Finally, Bill C-40, which amended the Canada Evidence Act and the Extradition Act to provide for the use of video linked testimony to be given at criminal trials and at extradition hearings.

We are building on our successes and will continue to combat telemarketing fraud through public education, information sharing and co-operative law enforcement using the new legislative tools that we have developed over the past year.

Before concluding, I would also like to address the issue of acts of intimidation directed against key players in the criminal justice system. My colleagues in the House will know that the concerns have been voiced with regard to this issue of intimidation directed against officials responsible for the investigation and prosecution of crimes: judges and persons responsible for the administration of sentences of convicted offenders, as well as members of the public who become involved in the criminal justice system as informants, witnesses or members of juries.

The intimidation of justice participants is purpose-driven. The purpose is either to interfere with the ability to secure a conviction against the accused or, in the case of an organization, against other members of the organization in the future, or to exact revenge. It is intended to destabilize the criminal justice system, particularly where the prosecution of organized crime is concerned.

The government is acting in this area and the Department of Justice is currently examining this issue. It is consulting with representatives of federal, provincial and municipal police agencies, federal and provincial prosecutors, federal and provincial correctional officers and officials and judges in all parts of Canada. The object of this exercise is to determine the scope and severity of the problem of intimidation and to develop an appropriate legislative response. I applaud this initiative. It is important for all our communities in terms of making them safer and more secure.

I will conclude by observing that organized crime is a pressing problem which takes various and many forms. The international community has identified the fight against organized crime as a priority issue. The Canadian government has taken a similar position, and rightfully so. It is important for all Canadians to have us move in this very important area.

Let us see if the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights can identify legislative avenues that can be effectively pursued by parliament to win the fight against the activities of criminal organizations.

I think this motion is most in order. It is useful and we should get on with passing it to make sure it goes to the committee where we can examine these and all important issues relating to organized crime.

[Health, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

Eighty five per cent of Internet users are looking for health information. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House and all Canadians how the public is to sift through the thousands of health related websites to get credible, trusted and relevant information?

[Aids Awareness, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the week of November 22 to 29 is National AIDS Awareness Week in Canada. By the end of 1997 Health Canada had reported a total of 15,528 AIDS cases since the beginning of the epidemic. Approximately 70% of those cases have ended in death. Whether by direct or indirect contact, many Canadians have either been affected by the disease or are close to someone who has. It is a reality that far too many people have to deal with.

I think it is important, especially during this week, to emphasize the risks and dangers of this horrible disease. Only through public education and awareness can we even attempt to solve this problem.

In recent years the level of reported cases has dropped, but there is still much work to do and ground to cover.

Research is being done to find a cure and better preventive measures, but it continues to be a deadly disease. We must and we will defeat this terrible disease.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss this very important legislation dealing with the Canadian institutes of health research as introduced by the Minister of Health earlier today.

As Canada enters a new century, the Government of Canada, along with the research community, recognizes that there is a tremendous opportunity to transform the funding of health research in Canada.

In 1998, a national task force on health research drew on the views of leaders and stakeholders in the granting councils, the teaching hospitals, the universities, the health charities, the provincial health research agencies, the health institutes and the business community. The task force proposed a major transformation in our approach to health research and recommended the creation of the CIHR.

By creating the CIHR, the Government of Canada has taken the first step toward creating a national health research strategy aimed at engaging all health research partners. This will position Canada very well as we move into the 21st century and, as such, is a very exciting proposition.

Canada's health research community has been given the chance not only to create Canada's premier health research enterprise, but also to do something very important for our country. In the next few months, the vision of a cutting edge, integrative and collaborative health research community in Canada will take shape and thus become a reality. That too is very much in keeping with what Canadians want.

The CIHR represents a revolutionary approach to health research in the country. It will reposition health research in a strategic way, funding and co-ordinating all federally supported research around an integrated health research agenda. This integrated approach will help to identify gaps in current research and lead to new strategies to address research shortcomings.

A priority of the CIHR will be to make a good link between health policy and good health research, in step with national health objectives, which is very important. It will incorporate the best of current approaches and practices to capitalize on existing strength while avoiding disruption of the excellent research work already under way.

There is a growing appreciation among stakeholder groups that an environment is needed where all sectors of health research are simultaneously welcomed, where areas lacking in capacity can be bolstered, and where all health researchers are encouraged to work together to solve complex and multifaceted health problems. The opportunity to exchange ideas and findings with fellow investigators is rare in the research world. Through this collaborative approach, research results will be shared to greater advantage and ultimately the creation and application of new knowledge will in fact be accelerated.

Canada's diverse health research community has rallied around the CIHR because they know that by transforming Canada's health research sector, everyone wins. They continue to play a key role in building this new organization as participants in a national dialogue in the CIHR development, leading up to the establishment of this key organization. In fact, this whole exercise to create and design the CIHR has been done in a very transparent and open manner.

The CIHR will bring together Canada's best investigators from a full spectrum of health research under a single umbrella to form a national brain trust of health researchers. This multidisciplinary approach will be organized through a framework of virtual institutes, each dedicated to a specific area of focus, linking and supporting researchers pursuing common goals. New synergies and networks will be forged across disciplines, including basic biomedical research, applied clinical science, health services and health systems and society, culture and the health of populations.

CIHR is an example of Canadian innovation and will mean a brain gain for Canada. New investments and better training will keep Canadian researchers in the country and maintain Canada's ability to develop world-class researchers in health in this area. The CIHR will bring the best and the brightest minds together to unlock then the mysteries of health.

As we see in the legislation, Bill C-13 will establish in law the federal government's commitment to the full range of health research inquiry. This will include an area of explosive growth, research into the social, cultural and environmental factors that affect the health of all Canadians. How, for example, does the health of Canadians who live in my part of the country differ from those who live in other parts of the country?

Through its support of both medical and social research, the CIHR will ensure that we as Canadians have a better understanding, not only of disease but also of health status. This latter field is a growing field of interest and has profound consequences in terms of health prevention.

There will be 10 to 15 virtual institutes that will support and link researchers as part of a national team based in numerous institutions where excellent work is being conducted across Canada. For example, an institute may be established to focus on aging, another on women's health or dedicated to mental health or the treatment and prevention of diseases such as cancer or heart disease.

To offer a sense of how a virtual institute might work, let me provide members with an example. Consider an institute on respiratory ailments in which a focus is on the growing incidents of asthma among Canadian children. It could bring together a multidisciplinary research agenda to address the following: basic genetic research on asthma at a hospital in a city centre; clinical trials and evaluations of asthma therapies in various provinces; research by social scientists and public health officials on factors leading to asthma in children in rural areas; or evaluate local pilot projects to improve how our health system responds to childhood asthma. Any of those or all of those would be in play.

This integrative approach will build on the research base in our universities, our health and research centres, our teaching hospitals, federal and provincial governments, voluntary and private sectors, and all of these working in conjunction and with each other.

The CIHR will effectively transform Canada's research sector in this way. Research that has traditionally been performed in disciplinary separation will now be integrated across scientific disciplines.

Research that was once conducted in a context that was separate from delivery will now be performed with a view to the integrated health system. Research performed under a multitude of agendas will now be integrated into a national health agenda.

By creating a robust health research environment in Canada, the CIHR will build the capacity of the Canadian health research community and promote the discussion of ethical issues, the dissemination of knowledge and the application of health research.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, thousands of highly skilled Canadians are employed in the health sector. The CIHR will provide expanded training and career opportunities for our scientists and clinicians in all areas of research, inspiring a whole new generation of Canadians to view health research as a viable career choice. The CIHR will ensure that funding levels are competitive with other countries and that our best and brightest minds remain in Canada.

Keeping our researchers here in Canada is definitely a top priority, but this is not the only benefit of the CIHR. Canadians will benefit from the development of technologies, products and services and practices that will lead to new treatments and preventative measures. The CIHR will be a solid return on their investment.

Health research plays an important role in providing new information and analysis upon which the effectiveness of the health care system can be judged. It will contribute to the advancement of national standards and provide valuable support of the decision making process.

Collaboration and partnership will lead to the sharing of information among researchers wherever they reside and among stakeholders, thus improving dialogue across different frontiers and creating a transparent and inclusive process for the setting of the health research agenda.

A climate of innovation and discovery will stimulate research investment in the health and biotech sectors. The number of made in Canada breakthroughs will multiply and will multiply fast.

In closing, I would like to emphasize again, because it is important, that the CIHR will be focused on results, on knowledge creation, on discoveries and enhanced base of knowledge to improve the health system. It will create more highly skilled jobs in key sectors of the economy and, above all, it will create healthier Canadians.

As exciting as this venture may be for researchers, in the end all Canadians will benefit and the Canadian institutes of health research will be very good for Canada. As a result, I urge all members of parliament to support this very important piece of legislation in the interests of all of Canada.

[Children, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, November 20 is national child day in Canada. This event is put forth to recognize the importance of our children. All children need to be loved, respected and supported to grow to their full potential. We need to recognize their rights and their important contributions to society.

Children are the future of our country and of the world. That is why national child day is so important. We need to reflect on their special needs and think of ways we can improve their well-being.

November 20 is the anniversary of two historic events for children. On this day in 1959 the United Nations adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child. In 1989 it adopted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I urge all Canadians to celebrate national child day in their own way. Listen to children, respect them and marvel at all they have to offer. We need to recognize how important our children really are to all of us and to Canada.

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

You guys are fearmongers, fearmongering dinosaurs.

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

They want to cane them.

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

A bunch of dinosaurs.