Julian Reed

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I must issue a disclaimer at the beginning of this debate, that is, I am not a lawyer like my learned hon. friend from Windsor--St. Clair, the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, or my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine.

However, the arguments I will be putting forward were prepared for me and will demonstrate that there are arguments to be made on both sides of this issue. I hope that the words I have to say will complement the argument put forward by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine. We all may find we have differences of opinion here but that is to be found in any area of law.

The fact that illegal poaching is undesirable is not the issue. The issue is whether the bill in its present form is the most appropriate mechanism for addressing illegal poaching. To answer this question, it is necessary to identify the particular harm being addressed and then examine what it is about the current response to this harm that is lacking.

For example, is the problem one of inadequate penalties in provincial wildlife regulatory schemes? If that is the problem, then the solution can be addressed in that context by provinces adjusting their penalty regimes so that the fines imposed do not become the cost of doing business for poachers.

On the other hand, if the problem is that there is a gap in the law, it is necessary to identify the particular social harm that needs to be addressed. This in turn requires an assessment of whether the response required is one that in its essence is regulatory in nature or involves the creation of a true crime.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of R v Wholesale Travel Group Inc., expressly recognized that:

...the common law has long acknowledged a distinction between truly criminal conduct and conduct, otherwise lawful, which is prohibited in the public interest--

Mr. Justice Cory expounded upon this distinction further and stated:

Regulatory legislation involves a shift of emphasis from the protection of individual interests and deterrence and punishment of acts involving moral fault, to the protection of public and societal interests. While criminal offences are usually designed to condemn and punish past, inherently wrongful conduct, regulatory measures are generally directed to the prevention of future harm through the enforcement of minimum standards of conduct and care.

Madam Speaker, you can tell by the way these words are constructed that they are not words of my creation. I am only an actor on this venerable stage.

In her remarks on May 9, the hon. member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley suggested that in Bill C-292 the approach to selling wildlife is “very similar to the way serious motor vehicle offences are handled”. The hon. member went on to explain and stated:

The bill would give the provincial authorities an opportunity to determine when something is serious enough and they want to have steeper and stiffer penalties to try to stop it from occurring.

With all due respect to the hon. member, it is not accurate to suggest that a rationale for creating a criminal code scheme in respect of selling wildlife is similar to the interplay between driving offences in provincial legislation and those outlined in the criminal code.

For example, the offence in section 259 of the criminal code regarding the imposition of driving prohibition orders is not simply a provision that gives police access to penalties higher than those available in provincial legislation for driving while prohibited or disqualified.

The prohibition order provision in the criminal code has an independent rationale for its existence. It is logically related to sentencing objectives for a range of driving offences in the criminal code. These offences are not simply replicas of offences that exist in provincial legislation. The rationale for their existence is entirely consistent with parliament's exercise of its criminal law power. The offence of impaired driving causing death, for example, condemns morally blameworthy behaviour and addresses a well recognized social harm.

Although the issue has not yet been addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada, there is case law at the provincial appellant level which states that where an offence carries the possibility of imprisonment, the constitutionality of a provision outlining a criminal offence can be challenged on the basis that there is insufficient evidence of a reasoned apprehension of harm to other individuals or society to justify the use of criminal law as opposed to other less intrusive measures.

In this context it is not sufficient to suggest that the rationale for creating an offence at the federal level is to provide police with access to greater penalties for more serious cases of an activity that is regulated by a provincial scheme.

Bill C-292 does not have the appearance or elements of a true criminal law scheme. The scheme in Bill C-292 more closely resembles a regulatory scheme that is being proposed for inclusion in the criminal code. As noted by constitutional law expert Peter Hogg, a criminal law ordinarily consists of a prohibition which is to be self-applied by the persons to whom it is addressed.

There is not normally any intervention by an administrative agency or official prior to the application of the law. Typically, offences in the criminal code prohibit a particular morally blameworthy behaviour. The breadth of the offence may be circumscribed by reference to a defence such as without lawful excuse.

In the context of the criminal code, the application of an offence provision however usually does not rely upon whether a licence to conduct the prohibited activity has been issued by a federal or provincial authority. In this regard, Bill C-292 expressly provides that the offence provisions in respect of wildlife that is not a threatened or endangered species do not apply to persons who act in accordance with a licence issued pursuant to a federal or provincial statute or regulation.

Another feature of the criminal code offences is that they almost always apply to everyone. It is extremely rare for a criminal code to specify exemptions for criminal liability in respect of particular offences. Nonetheless it is extremely rare to specify exemptions that depend upon the exercise of discretion by a member of the executive branch of government.

In this regard I note that section 447.8 of Bill C-292 grants discretion to the Minister of the Environment to issue an order exempting “any person or class of persons” from “application of all or any” of the provisions in respect of a threatened or endangered species.

Section 447.8 of Bill C-292 states that the test for exercising this discretion is met if “in the opinion of the minister, the extension is necessary or in the public interest”. This provision may be at risk of being challenged on a constitutional basis on the reason that the criteria are so subjective and in general that they do not provide any real limits on the behaviour to be exempted. This feature is not at all typical of offence provisions in the criminal code.

While I commend the hon. member for her intent and her concern with regard to the bill, it really does not fit and scope in the area in which she intended.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member used a phrase “quiet deals” in his speech, trying to become as extreme as he possibly could. He should stand up and name the quiet deals or withdraw the phrase.

[Renewable Energy, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on May 8 I had the great pleasure to learn that Royal Dutch/Shell has made a major investment in the bioethanol industry. This $46 million investment in Iogen Corporation, a world leading bioethanol technology company, will provide capital to enable Iogen to develop the world's first commercial scale biomass to ethanol plant.

Bioethanol is made from the fermentation of sugars derived from the plant fibre in renewable feed stocks such as wood and straw.

This announcement is a major boost not only for our agricultural sector which could find a market for surplus organic material, but also for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The announcement is one more step toward building the supply capacity to bring bioethanol to market.

I congratulate Iogen and Royal Dutch/Shell for this important investment.

[Africa, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Cooperation.

The new partnership for Africa's development will have to involve civil society. How is the Government of Canada going to accomplish this very worthy but extremely challenging objective?

[The Queen Mother, April 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the riding of Halton I rise to offer our condolences on the passing of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

The Queen Mother served as Colonel-in-Chief of three Canadian regiments, one of which, the Toronto Scottish Regiment, recently received the honour of the additional title Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother's Own, the only military unit in the world to carry her name.

One of the greatest satisfactions in my early life was to earn the title Queen's Scout, the highest earned award in scouting. It meant that I was ready to serve my Queen and country. Her steadfast commitment to public duty has remained with me during my years in public life.

The power of the singing at services in her honour was a fitting tribute to her strength and dignity, and we will always hold the Queen Mother in a special place in our hearts and memories.

[Species at Risk Act, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently through at least part of the speech of my friend, the hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain. For a while I wondered which bill he was speaking to, species at risk or cruelty to animals.

I want to point out to him and to the House that there has been a great deal of consultation on the bill. As a matter of fact there has probably been more consultation than there has been with any bill of its kind in past history, and particularly for the section we are speaking to, aboriginal peoples, who are the people who stand to benefit their country the most through the implementation of the bill. They are the people on the land, the people who are very directly affected. I can tell my hon. friend that I certainly will not forget the farmers, but I have to pay great respect to the aboriginal peoples of this land.

I should point out that in the bill it is the first time ever that aboriginal traditional knowledge is part of the decision making process. This has never happened before in the history of Canada. This is the first time. To me, that is very significant. As imperfect as some of my colleagues feel the bill is, we have made breakthroughs.

I also want to point out that a review is built into the legislation so that after the bill is passed, four years from now we are obliged to take a look at it again. There is a review process built right in so that the committee can review it. We can then determine what we have done right and what we have done wrong, because the actual nature of the bill is a breakthrough in itself. It is an attempt to bring about a departure from traditional kinds of legislation that are what we might describe as command and control. The Americans tried that. They passed legislation on species at risk or endangered species and it has not worked well. It is so deeply flawed that much of the budget for the preservation of species is going to litigation.

My minister wants this legislation to actually assist with the rehabilitation of species at risk, the identification of species at risk, and it will depend to a very large extent on the information obtained from aboriginal peoples in this country who will be able to deliver their traditional knowledge, which for the first time in the history of Canada can be brought to bear on the determination of species at risk.

The process has had intense involvement by representatives of Canada's aboriginal people in the development of the bill and has become a formal process through the working group on species at risk. This group has provided advice to the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Parks Canada Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada for a number of years already, and the advice, I must say, is invaluable. We are ensuring that it will continue in a formal way. It must. Ensuring that this formality exists is an enormous step forward. We are recognizing and putting into law the importance of the relationship of aboriginal people to land and wildlife. It is formal recognition and acknowledgement, a formal partnership. It is workable and valuable to all parties.

With this process and this legislation, with the incorporation of traditional aboriginal knowledge into the assessment and recovery of species, we are indeed moving forward. We have been saying for nearly nine years that we all share the responsibility for protecting wildlife. Perhaps no one group typifies a commitment to that responsibility more than Canada's aboriginal people. Our partnerships with aboriginal peoples have set the example for partnerships we have worked hard to foster with others: with landowners, with farmers, with fishermen, with conservation groups and with those in the resource sector.

We have established that nature and wildlife are an integral part of Canadian identity. This means that everyone in Canada has to take part in the success of this act. It deserves the support of everyone. I listened to my friend from Souris--Moose Mountain talk about farmers and people in the country, but he also quite rightly mentioned that the great majority of our citizens are urban. People in urban Canada have an equal responsibility for the protection of species, perhaps in the main because most of the species at risk are aquatic in nature. They are in the water. They are not on land at all. Therefore, when water such as the Great Lakes is degraded it means that those species at risk are continually put in danger.

With the bill, then, urban people will be able to join hands with rural Canada, with the very important input of aboriginal people, and hopefully, while it is perhaps not perfect, we can make this a bill that will raise the consciousness of all Canadians so that we can all move forward together and actually accomplish something that other parts of the world to date have not been able accomplish.

I enthusiastically endorse the bill. I also recognize that we can go back and look at it in years to come and ask what we did right and what we can correct, change and make better. In that spirit, I endorse Bill C-5 and would like to see it passed as soon as possible.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Athabasca would agree with the ancient Chinese proverb “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”.

I wonder if he would also agree with the people who are the base of his bread and butter in his own riding, namely, Suncor, Shell and BP. They have set targets for the marketing of renewable energy over the next 25 years. Suncor is the most vocal by committing $100 million and setting a target of 50% of its sales to be renewable energy over the next 25 years. It considers itself to be in the energy business now, not the oil business. It is the same with what were British Petroleum and Shell Canada Ltd.

How does the member tout this line that flies right in the face of his own oil companies that provide the base of his tenure here in the House of Commons?

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should know that consultations with the provinces are underway.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member to go into a chamber filled with carbon dioxide and write to me from in there. If he does not think carbon dioxide has any poisonous qualities I am not sure where he is coming from. He is the scientist and I am not but I challenge him to do that.

I also challenge him to investigate all of the work that the federal government is doing in terms of technology development, partnering with industry, which is happening as we speak.

Simply avoiding adopting these measures and taking the first step of a thousand mile journey is just a way of burying our heads in the sand one more time and going back to sleep which we have done in the past. We did it in 1979 after crude oil prices which were accelerating created a perceived crisis and then they dropped. Now my hon. friend would like us to do it again. However, I want him to talk to those three oil companies that have gone on record supporting renewable energy.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

An ancient Chinese proverb states that the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. The proverb is as true today as it was thousands of years ago. It is also true that there are two things on the planet human beings need: air and water. Without one the other is irrelevant.

My hon. friend from Red Deer said Canada was irrelevant because it only produced 2% of the world's emissions. That 2% is the basis for leadership in the world.

My hon. colleague said we needed more research and development and new technologies to begin to tackle what is now known as the Kyoto accord but which is an old problem that began before the turn of the last century. Does he not remember that all of Ontario was industrialized with renewable energy? Has he forgotten that Ontario became the heartland of the country with renewable energy before oil was discovered in North America in the 1870s in southwestern Ontario? Many of the technologies were mature by the turn of the century but have fallen into disrepute and disuse. Reviving the technologies would be a simple and straightforward move.

My hon. friend criticized emissions trading. He suggested the money being transferred would go to corrupt governments that would put it in Swiss bank accounts. The money would have to go to non-polluting industries. Over time this would mean a transfer of capital from polluting to non-polluting industries.

I will point out for the record that it has become timely to take action as soon as possible because three major oil companies have gone on record supporting renewable energy development. At least one of them has publicly committed $100 million and set targets for 50% of its sales to be of renewable energy within 25 years. That should say something to my hon. friend who comes from Alberta where the oil companies reside. We did not go on the record. The companies have gone on the record and are advertising it on television today.

The hon. member suggested Kyoto was dangerous and would be costly to the economy. That is economic fearmongering of the first order. Many of the problems were happening before the Kyoto accord and have been going on all through the years.

In Canada it is an established fact that there are 5,000 premature deaths a year because of dirty air. The polar ice cap is much thinner than it was. The Pacific Ocean has risen 12 centimetres. If the Pacific Ocean were to rise one metre it would displace 95 million people in China alone. This has been going on since long before Kyoto and the debate about whether there was global warming.

Insurance companies came to the government years ago and told us about the severity of insurance claims and how they were increasing every year. They believed that global warming was real, whether others did or did not.

My hon. friend talks about insufficient consultation. The minister has told the House that consultation would go on as we speak and would continue to go on. He made it very clear that within the next six weeks or so the evidence that has been accumulated to this date would be released for public consideration.

The suggestion that applying Kyoto would somehow stifle industry has to be looked at in the light of what happened historically in Ontario. International Nickel in Sudbury was told it had to clean up its act. There was much wailing, gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands in that industry. What happened as a result? International Nickel had to stop and put on its thinking cap, develop a way to utilize the sulphur that was damaging the environment around Sudbury and make money out of the technological change.

I have said this a number of times and people grow tired of the statement, but the strongest most powerful force on the face of the earth next to gravity is the status quo. It is easy to preserve the status quo. My friend talks about burying our heads in the sand. We can ignore 5,000 premature deaths. We can ignore the permafrost leaving the Mackenzie Valley and the disappearance of the Arctic ice cap. But can we?

This process began a long time ago and has accelerated as our use of combustible fuels has accelerated in the world. It will continue to accelerate. I am not so naive as to believe that somehow we will put a stop to that, but at least we can begin to turn the corner with our ingenuity and our recognition of the problem. Canadians recognize the need for parliament to do something concrete about global warming. The people recognize it just as the government does.

Now is the time to take action and not wait any longer. As William Shakespeare said:

There is a tide in the affairs of men Which taken at the flood leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.