Tom Wappel

[Petitions, November 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is primarily from people in my riding calling upon Parliament to request that the Government of Canada undertake a review of the foreign aid it provides to the Bangladesh government in view of that government's record of re-current violations of human rights with respect to the persecution of Hindus and other minorities; and that the Government of Canada consult with the government of India to ensure that refugees belonging to Hinduism and other religious minorities in Bangladesh are given all possible assistance in India on humanitarian grounds as outlined in the Geneva convention and in conformity with the practice of the Indian government in the past.

[Petitions, November 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions. Two of them are on the subject matter of adult stem cell research. The petitions are primarily from people in my riding, totalling about 125 people.

They call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

[Income Tax Act, November 18th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-305, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (health club membership fees).

Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill with the intent to encourage people to become physically fit and thereby ensure that by being physically fit they will be less of a burden on the health care system as it becomes more and more expensive.

I am using the Income Tax Act to attempt to encourage behaviour that allows people to become physically fit by joining health clubs and making sure they look after themselves. This would permit a deduction of the health club membership prior to the calculation of taxable income.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his kind words. I may not yet know all the different types of nets but I do know a trap when I see one, and some of these questions bear a resemblance of a trap.

The observations of the hon. member were quite correct when referring to our visit to Tofino. The member will recall that we were all startled at Mr. Henderson's response. This may be hard to believe of a bunch of politicians, but we were startled, basically speechless, by the boldness with which that verdict was delivered by that gentleman.

I have absolutely no explanation as to how he could say that all was well when the people on the ground demonstrated to us that all was indeed not well. They talked about 25 year old equipment in Victoria, and radar sites on the islands falling apart and not being able to be serviced in the wintertime. We were so speechless we did not have the chance to ask him how he could make such a statement, but hopefully someone will.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I have not seen the proposal. I have not had a chance to read it yet. Naturally I would be prepared to consider any reasonable suggestion, but as a general proposition I have no particular difficulty with a cost recovery program where it is just that: the recovery of costs to render a service. If it becomes a tax rather than a cost recovery scheme, then of course I am opposed to it.

If for some reason a cost recovery scheme were to have an abnormal effect on the particular area to which it is being administered, then obviously we should have a look at it, but at this point, without having a clear understanding of what the owners are proposing, I would not want to make a commitment.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. member is concerned about this issue. He is passionate about the issue of fisheries in general and the Coast Guard specifically.

I do not wish to make light of his question. However, I doubt very much that he is prepared to pay my hourly fee to examine the documents which he mentioned and provide him with a written opinion. If he is, perhaps we can talk about it afterwards but certainly not on the floor of the House.

I would not for a moment, as a lawyer, try to wing it, and offer free legal advice without having examined all of the documents, listened to all of the evidence, compared all of the inquiries that are going to take place, and then draw the appropriate conclusions thereafter. Without appearing to weasel out of anything, because my hon. friend knows that I do not generally do that at all, I am not prepared to offer a legal opinion without having examined all facets of the argument.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the House has set aside some time to discuss this issue. I am very happy to see that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is here to listen to the comments that members have.

In the short time that I have and the comments that I intend to make, I am probably preaching to the converted if I were speaking to the minister. In all likelihood what I would like to say at the start is that really my comments truly will be directed to the Minister of Finance. I hope that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans takes these comments to the Minister of Finance as he prepares the next budget.

On October 18, 2001 as a member of the fisheries committee I sat with others and listened to senior officials of DFO and the Canadian Coast Guard along with the Canadian Coast Guard Marine Communication and Traffic Services officers from British Columbia.

I think it would be fair to say gently that the testimony we heard startled us. It startled us to the extent that we as a committee decided it was necessary to go and see for ourselves and determine if what we heard at that time was indeed accurate.

We rather hastily arranged a trip to the west coast from November 20 to 23. We visited Vancouver, Victoria, Tofino and Prince Rupert. In particular, our visit for all intents and purposes was to examine the Marine Communication and Traffic Services of Canada on the west coast. We did have other business which we conducted but what I am going to talk about today is MCTS.

I am holding a brochure from MCTS which describes its mission:

The mission of MCTS Centres is to provide marine communications and traffic services for the marine community and the general public in order to: (1) save lives at sea; (2) protect the environment; (3) promote efficient vessel movement; and (4) disseminate accurate marine information.

There was however a fifth possible service discussed at that time, bearing in mind what I said about the date of the meeting, October 18, 2001, which was shortly after September 11. The employees brought to our attention that they felt there were some significant gaps in Canada's security coverage of the west coast. They pointed out that Canada's west coast has vast unpopulated areas, which we all know, where drug and contraband smugglers, illegal immigrants and other people might try to enter without being detected.

It was pointed out that there are not a lot of radar facilities that MCTS could use. It was also pointed out that MCTS helps the Department of National Defence in observing the comings and goings of vessels. They also made some very specific recommendations. Further they said:

On a daily basis MCTS Officers witness unidentified vessels proceed to Canada unchallenged by any other authority. Realistically, Canada can't expect the U.S. to open their borders to Canada when we leave the majority of our coast completely unguarded.

Given that that might have been some hyperbole, it certainly caused us to sit up and take notice and we went out there to check it out. Sad to say, I think it is accurate that the committee found what I would call eight observations. By the way we did go to the east coast and it was also confirmed on the east coast later on.

The first observation was that MCTS is the victim of chronic underfunding year after year. There are morale problems. There is a crumbling infrastructure which our chairman at that time called “rust out”. This has to do with some of the radar facilities on remote islands which are constantly being pounded by the ocean surf, by spray and that sort of thing.

There was understaffing, which would be exacerbated in the future by the retirement of people who had given their entire lives to the service and were coming to the end of their careers and also by attrition. It takes over two years to become a fully qualified MCTS officer. It appeared to us at that time that there might be some gap between the time that people were retiring or would like to retire, because there were cases where people wanted to retire but they decided that they would not in the interests of the service because there was nobody there to replace them.

We also went to Seattle where we talked to the American coast guard, which has a slightly different role. Indeed, as the previous speaker said, it holds the MCTS in high regard and it is MCTS's job to patrol the Straits of Juan de Fuca on behalf of both countries. When I say patrol, I mean observe for the purposes of marine safety.

Seattle and the staff there told us that they had no doubts of the professionalism and dedication of MCTS officers. They had high praise for the cooperative vessel traffic service, which is a model of international cooperation, but they independently told us that their colleagues were spread too thin and they did not have enough money.

There is a lack of training. VTOSS, vessel traffic operations support system, is a system that was developed by a Canadian. It is praised by everyone, but it has not yet been fully documented. Both our Canadian and U.S. counterparts indicated that the gentleman who developed this system, Mr. Grant McGowan, should have at least two to three support staff to help him set this up properly and get it down on paper.

We had at that time some security concerns. We noted that the Coast Guard College on the east coast was also suffering from lack of funds. This is not good news because the Coast Guard and MCTS provide vital services and could be providing more of a service.

We are talking amounts of money that in the global budgets that the government is talking about are truly a pittance. At that time they were talking about $1 million short. We have heard different figures: $8 million, $9 million, $10 million and $5 million. That is all peanuts in comparison to the kind of money that the government spends. It is a tragic situation that a service such as MCTS is chronically underfunded and that the employees must come to a parliamentary committee in Ottawa to bring this to the attention members.

The problem is even further manifested because when we spoke to the officials in charge in British Columbia we were startled by the response. I am glad the minister is here because I want him to know that sometimes his bureaucrats will report things to him that certainly, from my own personal observation, are inaccurate. They said that they understood there was a shortfall, but MCTS was able to carry out its mandate, although this might entail the reallocation of funding within the existing Canadian Coast Guard Pacific Region funding envelope. In other words, bureaucratic bafflegab for “Look, we do not have enough money, but we cannot get it from anywhere so we will just pretend everything is okay”.

That is nonsense. We were shocked when we heard that. One would think the senior bureaucracy would come to the aid of the men and women on the frontlines and continue to press for more money. Perhaps they are, we do not hear about it. Perhaps it is only into the ear of the minister.

I say to the Minister of Finance, whom I believe still wears the minister of security hat, this is a shame. It is not to be allowed. It is not to be permitted to continue for the sake of the safety and security of our mariners and everyone on the oceans, and for the security of our three oceans. The Minister of Finance and I know the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is advocating this. We need further funding to help MCTS to protect our country.

[Statutory Instruments Act, June 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased not only to speak to the bill this evening, but to second it and to indicate my support for it.

I will just give a brief bit of history. I was asked to sit on the scrutiny of regulations committee first in April 1989. I have been on that committee in an uninterrupted capacity, except for elections of course, since 1989. I have served as the co-chair of that committee and I am currently the vice chair of that committee. Considering 13 years of experience on the committee, I think I have something to offer in terms of the debate on this bill.

I would like to begin by quoting at length from a letter dated December 20, 1999 which was sent from the then co-chairs of the committee and the vice chair of the committee to the then minister of justice, who is now the Minister of Health. The co-chairs at that time were Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette and the member for Surrey Central. They still are the co-chairs. The vice chair was myself and I am still the vice chair. However, if I quote significant portions of the letter, it will become clear what the problem is and why the suggested solution in C-202 is a good one. I begin on page one. It says:

For the last quarter of this century, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has reviewed instruments of delegated legislation pursuant to its statutory mandate and in accordance with the rules of both Houses. Thoughtful participants in and observers of the federal regulation making process acknowledge that parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation has played a useful role in maintaining and improving the quality of federal regulations. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons also provide for a disallowance procedure that applies to a category of statutory instruments, to wit those made by the Governor in Council or a Minister. These provisions of the Standing Orders were adopted in 1986 following a recommendation of the McGrath committee and earlier recommendations of the Joint Committee itself. As you probably know, the placement of the current disallowance procedure in the Standing Orders was intended to be temporary and we feel time has come to give a more permanent status to that procedure through its inclusion in a statute, preferably the Statutory Instruments Act.

I continue at the top of page 2, which says:

The most glaring problem with the current disallowance procedure is that it only applies to statutory instruments made by the Governor in Council or by a Minister. The result is that a fairly large body of subordinate law is not subject to disallowance. In our view, there is no good reason, in either theory or practice, why a regulation made by the Governor in Council can be disallowed by Parliament while the regulation made by the National Transportation Agency or the National Energy Board cannot. That a distinction was made between these two bodies of subordinate law is entirely a consequence of the choice made in 1986 to implement the new disallowance procedure by means of amendments to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

I turn to page 3 and quote again:

Putting the current procedure on a statutory footing would not only ensure that Parliament's control of the delegated legislation is more effectively exercised, it would also allow for a simplification of the present procedure. At the moment, the revocation of an instrument disallowed by the House of Commons ultimately depends on a decision of the Governor in Council or the appropriate Minister to obey the order of the House of Commons. While constitutionally persuasive, as a matter of law an order of the House of Commons is not binding on the author of a disallowed instrument and cannot be enforced by the courts.

Finally, also on page 3, it says:

It has always been the view of this Committee that any general disallowance procedure ought to have a statutory basis. That view was endorsed by the McGrath committee [in 1986] and later, by the Sub-committee on Regulations and Competitiveness. Indeed, as we noted above, when the current procedure was put in place, it was stated to be an experiment whose success would lead to the implementation of a statutory procedure.

I wholeheartedly agreed with those comments when I signed the letter. I still agree with them today, even more so.

We heard today from the parliamentary secretary that the current procedure is working and it is, as far as it goes. I remind everyone that it was an experiment. If it was working, it was to be turned into a statutory disallowance procedure. The McGrath committee said that and the Subcommittee on Regulations and Competitiveness said that. We have heard from the parliamentary secretary that the government does not want to do that. That is unfortunate.

The parliamentary secretary laid out a few criticisms of the bill. Some of them are warranted, but they can easily be remedied at committee stage with amendments. It is not necessary to defeat the bill now in order to deal with some of the comments the parliamentary secretary made.

For example, that there is no role for the Senate in the current legislation is clearly something the mover of the bill could deal with at his appearance before the committee. It is something the committee could deal with by way of appropriate amendments. That is certainly not fatal to defeat the bill at second reading.

I want to make a couple of comments on some of the alleged problems with the bill. We already have a disallowance procedure. It is in the rules. It has been around. It is successful by admission. The only problem is it does not deal with all regulations.

It does not make sense for the Parliament of Canada to be able to disallow a regulation proposed by the governor in council or a minister, but not disallow a regulation proposed by some subdelegate. It just does not make any logical sense. Indeed in many cases the ordinary Canadian is impacted far more by the regulatory agency than by perhaps a regulation made by a minister.

Who oversees the regulations of those regulatory agencies? Not parliament. How does that make parliament supreme? We often hear wonderful speeches in the House about how parliament is supreme. How is parliament supreme if parliament cannot review the regulations proposed by subdelegates of a minister but can review the regulations proposed by a minister? It does not make sense logically or legally.

Comments were made that the bill is substantially the same as the current standing orders. I would argue that is not true. The simple reason is that the standing orders, as I just said, do not deal with many regulations brought forward by agencies and that is a huge hole as far as I can see. On the fail-safe mechanism, perhaps this is the result of some misunderstanding by the justice department, but it is fairly clear there is already a fail-safe mechanism in the rules. If the minister does not want the regulation defeated, the minister can bring a motion which would then be debated and voted upon. If the House of Commons decided that the resolution to disallow was to be defeated, that would be the fail-safe mechanism.

The bill has exactly the same fail-safe mechanism. If a resolution were brought under the statutory footing asking that the regulation be disallowed, the minister could say “No, I am going to bring a motion that the resolution be defeated”. If the minister can convince the House of Commons that the resolution to disallow should be defeated, it will be defeated. The House of Commons remains supreme. The minister is in control if his or her arguments are sound. Where is the problem? To say that somehow parliament should not have the authority to examine the regulations of agencies which are creatures of the House of Commons, which are created by the House of Commons, is with all due respect such a huge gap in logic as to be virtually laughable.

I have examined the bill carefully. I see no reason that the House should not support it at second reading, send it to committee, examine some of the considerations that the parliamentary secretary and the Department of Justice have put forward, and then propose amendments which can be dealt with by the House of Commons.

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that very shortly after Sharpe decision number two, the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge was instrumental in pulling together a group of police officers on Parliament Hill. In fact it occurred last Tuesday. They were from all across the country, from as far away as Vancouver and as close by as Toronto. They brought a lot of information to us.

I want to pay particular tribute to the hon. member for his initiative in pulling that meeting together so very quickly. His initiative was rewarded by seeing a great number of members of parliament from different parties attend the session that he organized. I want to give the hon. member that praise.

Does the member have any particular amendments or suggestions which he did not have an opportunity to give us in his short 10 minute speech which he would like to give in response to my question?

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we passed legislation on October 18, 2001 creating a new offence of luring, which targets criminals. We make it an offence to transmit, make available, export, or intentionally access child pornography on the Internet. What is the hon. member talking about?

We allow judges to order the deletion of child pornography posted on computer systems in Canada. We allow judges to order the forfeiture of any instrument or equipment used in the commission of child pornography offences. The trouble is the judges are not doing it.

A child pornographer was working for the Department of National Defence. What happened? The judge let him have his computer so he would have something to do. What kind of a judge is that?