Mac Harb

[Frank Doyle, December 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Frank Doyle who tragically lost his life in Tower 2 of the World Trade Center on September 11.

Frank was a citizen of the United States with strong ties in Canada. Both his parents come from the Pontiac region and his beloved wife Kim is a Canadian citizen who was also born in Quebec. Frank leaves behind many loved ones including his daughter Zoe and his son Garrett.

Tomorrow his family and friends will gather to remember Frank as he will be laid to rest in Canada, the first American born casualty from September 11 to be returned to his family.

I join with my colleagues on behalf of all Canadians to offer our deepest condolences to the Doyle family.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Also, in accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, November 20, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is happy to present its 14th report to the House of Commons on Bill C-41, an act to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act. The committee agreed on Thursday, November 29, to report it without amendment.

[Crohn's and Colitis, November 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I inform the House and all Canadians that November has been designated Crohn's and Colitis Awareness Month by the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada.

Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are chronic digestive disorders of the small and large intestines. Approximately 100,000 Canadian men, women and children are affected. The severity of symptoms can vary dramatically and the disease often results in frequent illness, hospitalization and surgery. The cause and cure for this disease remain unknown.

Through education and fellowship the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada offers support to those affected and raises public awareness. I extend best wishes to the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada and its thousands of volunteers across Canada for a successful public awareness campaign during the month of November.

[Impaired Driving, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Traffic Injury Research Foundation released a survey that showed 17% of Canadians admit to driving after drinking alcohol. One in every 12 Canadians admit that they were drunk at the wheel at some point during the past year.

These figures are both frightening and alarming. In 1999 there were 3,500 serious injuries and 906 deaths in fatal car crashes involving alcohol. These people are our neighbours, our friends and sometimes our family members. It is up to us to act responsibly.

On behalf of all my colleagues in the House of Commons I encourage all Canadians not to drink and drive.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on Group No. 6, the motion specifically dealing with information and the designation of a certain class of individuals.

The motion should be rejected by the House for a number of reasons. As it is right now, a person would be permanently bound to secrecy if the person is a current or former member or employee of a scheduled entity or if designated by a deputy head and personally served with a notice to that effect. The criteria for designating a person to be permanently bound to secrecy is twofold: first, if the person has, has had or will have authorized access to “special operational information” and, second, if it is in the interests of national security to designate the person.

Also, new offences, in particular sections 13 and 14 of the Security of Information Act, create a special regime for those persons who have a privileged access to the most vital information, special operational information, and criminalizes on their part the unauthorized disclosure, or purported disclosure, of this narrow band of information going to the essence of Canada's national security.

As well, the security and intelligence community has certain operational requirements that need to be fostered and respected. These operational requirements include an ability to ensure secrecy and project to others that they have the ability to protect the information entrusted to them.

While the person is designated for life, the character of the information may change. The definition of special operational information makes it clear that it is information the Government of Canada is taking measures to safeguard from disclosure.

The issue goes to the heart of what the bill is all about. The intent of the bill is to create a situation whereby we would have what we call a pre-emptive action in regard to a potentially destructive action by a group of terrorists whose main objective is to destroy our democracies, destroy our lives and disrupt the way in which we conduct our business.

Let us say, for example, that one of our law enforcement officers is authorized to seek information from a second or a third source and that officer is to give assurances and a clear commitment that the source of the information will not be disclosed. I am at a loss as to how we would turn around and say that we will protect the source of information and the individual or the entity that has given us the information but we will do so for only 15 years and then after that it is fair game, the information will become public.

Frankly, I would take the position that this amendment would render this whole section of the bill, and in fact the whole of the legislation, irrelevant. It would not really allow us to put into force what we are trying to do, that is, to create a preventive mechanism so we can ensure the safety of our citizens and others around us. In essence, while the intent might be good the result of it is absolutely counterproductive and fairly disruptive.

I ask members to consider that some of the operational work our officers get involved in is very sophisticated. Their work involves a whole range of things such as decoding information, looking at encrypted data being transmitted, the interception of information and so on.

Imagine for a moment if we were to say that whatever technique an individual officer or particular entity is using is going to be made public within 15 years. Frankly, that would not serve the public interest. It would not serve national security. Nor would it serve our law enforcement officers who are entrusted with the job of ensuring that our communities are safe and our nation is protected from those who have ill-conceived ideas and ideologies.

My submission is that as it is the bill goes a long way in creating a balance between what we call the public safety, the protection of information, and on the other side the respect for the individual and the privacy of the individual. At the same time it creates a situation whereby, notwithstanding anything, when we test it against Canadian values it will stand up and there will be no problem.

Even the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would mean nothing if the security of the nation as a whole were threatened. We have to ensure that we have a balance whereby we continue to respect the individual's rights to expression, to privacy, to the ability to move, to the ability to practise his or her religion, to the ability to associate. We also have to ensure that public safety and the will of the people have not been infringed on in a way that would create a situation where our democracy would be threatened. Once our democracy is threatened, notwithstanding any law, those laws will become irrelevant if our society is to be faced with a situation where the very heart of it, its raison d'être, is threatened.

All I am trying to do in a long-winded way is bring home the point that we have to ensure that our law enforcement officers have the necessary tools to conduct their jobs, to do their work in an effective and efficient manner. Having said that, we have to protect the information, the mechanisms, the entities and the identities of those who provide those special operations. We have to protect them forever if we are really sincere about trying to set up a system with the proper integrity.

We are not talking about any kind of information. We are talking about information that affects national security, that affects the national standards and affects the safety of Canadians. When there is a national risk to our safety, under those circumstances automatically those people may fall into this particular category. To turn around and say that we are going to have an open field and a free-for-all, I do not think that is going to be productive at all.

On the whole, the bill is balanced. The act will be reviewed on an ongoing basis. If and when it comes to the attention of the government that there are issues which need to be addressed, they will be addressed.

The best thing the House can do is pass the legislation as quickly and as efficiently as possible so it can move into the other house. Then we can make it a law and fulfill our commitment on the United Nations statements.

[Computer Hackers, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague in speaking to this issue. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada stated at the outset of the debate that we already have in place mechanisms in the criminal code that deal with the specific issue before the House today. Section 342.1 and subsection 430(1.1) were created in 1985 and both deal with the dissemination of computer viruses.

On the surface it seems that the motion is pretty good. The minister said it was fine. However the issue has been part and parcel of the criminal code and to that extent I will speak about the importance of the issue. The issue is very important not only to the Government of Canada, the House, and the hon. member who put the motion but to all Canadians.

I wish to assure the House that the government takes this issue very seriously. In fact Canada was one of the first countries in the world to introduce computer related offences in the criminal code.

Canada is not only one of the most connected nations on earth but it also has some of the best legislation dealing with the issue of dissemination of hate literature, hacker data and the transmission of viruses over the Internet. The Government of Canada has taken measures to address this issue a long time ago and continues to do so.

In 1997 the government moved even further by adding new offences to the Criminal Law Improvement Act that would deal specifically with possession or trafficking in computer passwords and the possession of devices that could enable the commission of an offence which would compromise the confidentiality and integrity of a computer system.

Rapid technological changes require that we continuously review and update the criminal code to ensure that it keeps up with contemporary crimes that take place. The omnibus bill that deals with the use of the Internet by pedophiles for luring children among other things is an example of the review process the government has undertaken in the past and continues to do so.

The government has launched a number of initiatives, one of which was the establishment of a working group made up of officials from the RCMP as well as officials from various government departments including justice, industry, foreign affairs, the solicitor general, health and heritage.

A consultative process was launched in 2000 in partnership with the private sector, namely the Canadian Association of Internet Providers and the Information Technology Association of Canada. The mandate of the working group was to review on an ongoing basis not only the actions of the government but the potential for action by the government to review what was taking place in the marketplace and to respond to it in an efficient, effective, pragmatic and progressive fashion.

In terms of enforcement, the RCMP offers training courses through the Canadian Police College for crime investigators on electronic search and seizure by looking at two types of computers, the PC and the Macintosh. It also offers a network communications course and will soon introduce an introductory Unix course.

In recent weeks the RCMP sponsored two courses on advanced intrusion analysis for investigators from the federal, provincial and municipal law enforcement communities. These courses provide investigators with practical examples of a hacker's tools as well as simulated network intrusions to gain experience and knowledge of a hacker's behaviour, modus operandi and style.

The government is using law enforcement agencies as well as taking measures on the legislative and preventive fronts. The RCMP is in the field working collectively with all levels of government and the community to ensure that children, consumers and society are protected.

There have been many success stories that can be cited in the House. The parliamentary secretary indicated the case of mafia boy. That individual was prosecuted.

The RCMP is involved with a case in western Canada where a manufacturer of illicit drugs was using the Internet to send coded messages to potential purchasers and later shipped goods using the computer. The RCMP is on top of an ongoing investigation and we anticipate a swift conclusion to this case.

The RCMP is involved with a project called moonlight maze which was a computer intrusion investigation involving the FBI and Scotland Yard. A hacker could be anywhere and commit a crime. In this case a hacker based in Moscow used various computer sites in Canada to gain access to various military installations in the United States to do damage.

While this investigation is ongoing law enforcement officers not only within this country but around the world are aware of the potential for problems. They are also working collectively in order to deal with issues affecting the safety of computers and computer users.

Last year the RCMP investigated numerous website defacement cases in Canada and the United States. These acts were traced to a 16 year old youth from Sackville. The victims included Human Resources Development Canada, the Department of National Defence, the United States postal service and an Internet service provider in New York.

The youth was a member of an international hacker group called HV2K that comprised 20 persons from Canada, the United States, England and Pakistan. This issue is still under investigation by the RCMP. The RCMP has worked very diligently with its counterparts in the United States and around the world to deal with issues affecting the safety of data as well as of computers.

In 1999 the RCMP launched an investigation of a computer hacking ring located in the eastern provinces. A computer had successfully penetrated two large Internet service providers stealing one of their ISP user IDs and password files and decrypting the password file to gain anonymous access to the Internet to compromise the e-mail accounts of users. This investigation has been ongoing for quite a long time and the RCMP is on top of it working with law enforcement officers at all levels of government.

Needless to say, the government takes this issue very seriously. The government has launched a number of initiatives and continues to do so in order to respond to this issue. While I commend my colleague on taking this initiative and bringing it to the House of Commons I must state that it has been part of the criminal code and is being dealt with by the government.

[Housing, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as the weather grows colder many of us are already thinking about spending time with our loved ones during the upcoming holiday season. Unfortunately for thousands of Canadians the winter also brings on a season of fear and worry for those without a home and simply trying to survive on the street.

In response the federal government adopted a strategy to draw together the resources of local communities to develop unique solutions that address the needs of individual communities. In my own riding of Ottawa Centre the Minister of Labour who is responsible for homelessness initiatives has worked tirelessly to support partnerships between all levels of government, non-profit organizations and the private sector.

These combined efforts will go a long way to support transitional housing initiatives and help people move from shelters to independent living arrangements. By working together we can eliminate the root causes of homelessness in Canada.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my capable colleague from Eglinton--Lawrence.

It is quite ironic that we are debating this particular issue at this point in time. One would think this issue should not even be an issue for debate given that our two countries share the longest border in the world and that we do more trade with one another than any other countries in the world. Over 87% of our trade is with the United States as compared to over 25% of their trade being with Canada.

To a large extent we are friends, neighbours and partners whether we like it or not. In the interests of people on both sides of the border we are forced to work collectively.

The issue of softwood lumber represents less than 3% of the overall trade with the United States, slightly less than $10 billion on an annual basis.

If we were to look at the overall relationship between Canada and the U.S., it is excellent. Frankly, it is those small irritants that are causing a tremendous amount of frustration on this side of the border. Simply put, the softwood lumber issue is clearly creating a tremendous amount of problems in different parts of the country.

Thousands of families, as colleagues on both sides of the House have indicated, are suffering as a result of the countervailing duties and the punitive duties the Americans have decided to put on softwood lumber.

This is not the first time the issue has surfaced. It is now three or four times that we have fought with our friend and trading partner to the south in courts and before tribunals and almost every time we have won. The last time we had a dispute, the Americans had to pay Canadian companies in excess of $800 million along with interest on taxes illegally collected from those companies on goods that had been sold on the other side of the border under an arrangement we had with them for many years.

The American administration is moving again like a pit bull with an imposition on our industry in excess of 30%. Frankly, it is totally unacceptable. As the minister clearly stated, the challenge the government mounted at the World Trade Organization is very much wanted. The government and industry on this side of border will win again. The bottom line is, what does it take for the American administration when it comes to this particular issue to understand that enough is enough and that we have to move on?

The bottom line is not a question of subsidies or no subsidies; it is a question of protectionism or no protectionism. The question that needs to be asked of the American administration is why it continually seems to buckle under to the pressure of special interests in the United States, whether it comes from Montana, Mississippi or wherever. Enough is enough.

The unfair duties being imposed on the Canadian industry not only penalize the industry here in Canada, but they penalize American consumers. American consumers are absolutely outraged at the administration. American homeowners have to pay in excess of $3,000 as a result of this unfair tax being imposed on softwood lumber imported from Canada.

We could tell consumers in the United States to buy wood from Mississippi but consumer group after consumer group told us when we were in the United States that they do not like Mississippi wood. Even if we were to give it to them for free they would not put it in their homes simply because the wood from Mississippi is not good enough quality to put in homes. It may be okay to use for chairs, tables or whatever else, but it is not of sufficient quality to put in homes. That is the problem. That is the crux of the matter.

American consumers are smart. They are intelligent. They are consumers who will pay for the high value goods they receive. The administration is robbing those consumers of their right to choose. How is it doing that? By imposing this unfair tax of 30% on products being imported from Canada.

We can talk all we want. The government was asked to do this and that but the bottom line is the government has done exactly what it is supposed to do. After the agreement expired on March 31, 2001 what kicked in immediately was free trade. With free trade an agreement is not required. Everyone follows the law.

Two things are being asked of our government. First, we want the government to know it has our unequivocal support in what it does in terms of its challenge at the World Trade Organization so the laws of the land are upheld. Second, if and when the industry itself in Canada asks the government to sit down and look at ways to come up with a mutually conclusive agreeable type of arrangement then it should look at that.

For us to try to undermine the process and criticize the government, whether it is the opposition, special interest groups or whatever, is highly unfair. At the end of the day the government is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, which is to stand up for the interests of consumers, the workers and the industry and to do what is fair and important to the industry in Canada. Whether the industry is in the west or the east, it should stick together and maintain the common position that it has maintained all along, which is free trade in softwood lumber. That is what we were told in the United States when we met with consumer groups and when we met with the industry here.

The subcommittee on international trade held a number of hearings with all of the stakeholders. They are totally and unequivocally in support of free trade on softwood lumber. Therefore the case is closed. Let us move on. The bottom line is, will our friends to the south move on? One can only say the test of time will tell.

Our colleagues in both houses, the senate as well as the congress in the United States had better stand up for the rights of their consumers. They had better stand up for the rights of their constituents who are calling on them. We want free trade in softwood lumber. The very same consumers have called on us in the House to defend the interests of the consumers in the United States and to defend free trade as we know it now.

To that extent I am very happy with the way the Minister for International Trade, his parliamentary secretary and officials have conducted themselves over the past few months. They have been trying to provide strong leadership. They have been trying to do what is right and fair on both sides of the equation.

To that extent I can say this debate is very timely. However, in the interest of time we had better come to grips with the fact that free trade must prevail at all times. There cannot be a double standard where on the one hand products are bought under the rules of free trade and on the other hand taxes are imposed on them. It is not right. It is not free trade and it is not acceptable. We will not let that occur without a challenge.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me speak on some of the benefits that would come to Canadians, from all the different parts of the country, with the establishment of a national marine conservation areas act.

It would provide increased protection for outstanding examples of Canada's Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans, as well as the Great Lakes. It would provide an opportunity to increase public awareness and understanding of Canada's rich natural and cultural marine heritage. It would provide an opportunity to promote and publicize Canada as a worldclass ecotourism destination. It would provide an opportunity to diversify the economies of remote coastal communities. It would provide better planning with respect to ecologically sustained use of marine resources. As well, it would provide a focus and support for long term scientific research and monitoring related to the marine environment.

My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois raised the issue of provincial jurisdiction by saying that problems will arise concerning the management of these issues.

I would say, particularly to the hon. member, that this legislation does not affect in any way the existing relationship between the provinces and the federal government. For example, if a province owns all or part of the submerged lands in a sector where Parks Canada proposes to create a marine conservation area, a federal-provincial agreement will have to be concluded in order to transfer the ownership of the submerged lands to the federal government. Without such an agreement, the marine area cannot be created.

This is how the issue will be managed.

In marine areas where there was a contested federal as well as provincial jurisdiction, there would always be consultation with the province concerned with a view to finding a mutually satisfactory resolution. The federal government does not intend in any way, shape or form to act unilaterally.

Moreover, that way, we can always solve the difficulties which could arise, one way or another.

Another issue was raised, this one about the native peoples. As regards existing aboriginal or treaty rights, several stakeholders recommended that a non-derogation provision be included in the bill. These rights being constitutionally protected, the government has the obligation to respect them, regardless of any law. Nonetheless, for greater certainty, such a provision has been included in this bill.

When the committee heard from witnesses, concerns were expressed that the bill limited the circumstances under which reserves could be created. As a result, the bill was amended to broaden its scope making it clear that reserves could be established in the maritimes, or British Columbia for example, where there are settlement processes for claims to aboriginal rights other than the comprehensive land claim process.

The witnesses also expressed concern with the fact that the bill requires an act of parliament to remove lands from a national marine conservation area yet there could be situations, such as court decisions pertaining to the title, that should be resolved in a more expedient manner.

As a result, the bill was amended to allow the governor in council to remove land from a marine conservation area by order in council if a court, for example, found that aboriginal titles existed and the title holder did not want the land to remain as part of the marine conservation area. Here again we have seen that the committee has responded to the wishes of witnesses in that particular area of concern.

There is another notion, which is the establishment of a marine conservation area. It has always been the government's intention that those national parks and national marine conservation areas would be established in the same manner. As such, Bill C-10 was amended to reflect changes made in the recently proclaimed National Parks Act and all changes affecting the establishment procedures adopted in this bill will also be reflected in that act.

With regard to management planning, the bill states that the management plan would be prepared within five years of the area being established. While the bill was in committee, it was suggested that five years was too long to wait. Coastal communities need greater certainty before an area is established. The bill was amended so that when a new proposal comes before parliament, along with the report on the objectives and management of the area, the report will also include an interim management plan. In addition, the report will outline the consultation held on any agreement reached with provinces and other departments.

A management advisory committee will be created for each marine conservation area to ensure that consultation with local stakeholders continues on an ongoing basis.

The management plans for each area must be reviewed at least every five years. Thus the government will take a learn by doing approach for every area.

In each marine conservation area, ongoing consultations will make it possible for Parks Canada staff to take advantage of the knowledge of local residents and the traditional ecological know-how of the coastal and aboriginal communities.

The question of zoning was also raised. I want to emphasize to my colleagues the importance of zoning as a powerful and flexible tool for managing use within a marine area. In each marine conservation area there would be multiple use zones where ecologically sustainable uses are encouraged, including fishing. There will also be zones where special protection is afforded to, for example, critical spawning grounds, cultural sites, whale calving areas and scientific research sites. These would be protected zones where resource use would not be permitted.

The bill was amended to clarify that all marine conservation areas would contain at least two types of zones. At the same time, enough flexibility is left in the bill to ensure that each area can have a zoning plan that is appropriate to its individual situation.

I can assure hon. members that the regulatory authorities already in place in this bill, particularly those relating to zoning, can be used to manage activities such as bottom trawling, on a case by case basis, in locations where the seabed is vulnerable.

Parks Canada will identify the location of protection zones and surrounding multiple use zones for each proposed national marine conservation area during the feasibility study for that area in full consultation with those directly affected.

Finally, on the consultation question, it should be noted that the consultation provision of the bill has been strengthened considerably. The proposed legislation now requires the minister to consult with stakeholders, which includes relevant provincial and federal agencies and ministries, affected coastal communities, aboriginal governments and organizations, bodies established under land claim agreements, and other persons and bodies as appropriate.

The list of matters on which ministers are required to consult has also been expanded to include the development of regulations as well as consultation on the establishment of any proposed national marine conservation.

In the course of the committee hearings, the committee spoke to witnesses who approached the bill from a very different perspective. Some clearly stated that the bill was too restrictive and unnecessarily focused on environmental protections. At the same time, others saw the bill as too weak and asked the committee to consider further blanket restrictions and prohibitions.

The committee was sensitive to the concerns of all parties. The amendments that have been made show the serious approach the government has taken to those concerns and how it has made an effort to make the required changes when possible and appropriate.

On the whole, I believe the government has taken a balanced approach to the bill. It is my hope that the House of Commons approves it.

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I have a comment and a question. First I want to say how delighted I am to see the government playing the leadership role it has played over the years in the WTO, in particular when it comes to two issues, the first one being transparency and a clear rule of law when it comes to implementing a decision made by the World Trade Organization.

One would only have to look at what is happening across the border as well as at what is happening with some of our trading partners in some of the disputes we have with them to quickly come to the conclusion that we need a system in regard to trade disputes that is sane, a system, frankly, that responds to the needs of the business community, the needs of the community in general and the needs of nations respectively. We have only to look at the problem of softwood lumber as well as the dispute with Brazil involving the aerospace industry.

For example, it makes no sense at all to see a corporation, whether it is in British Columbia, Quebec or Newfoundland, wait up to five years not only for its case to be heard but to be decided. At the end of the day when a decision is rendered, it may then have to go through perhaps two, three, four or five years of different mechanisms of appeal. Before the end of it, some of those corporations may not exist at all.

Simply put, it is absolutely imperative for us as a government to be at the WTO table in order to ensure that not only do we have transparent rules but we have effective rules. It is important to have rules that bring some sanity to the system so that when a decision is made by the WTO against a particular country, that country would have to obey and implement the WTO decision. We must have a mechanism available whereby that particular country would be penalized if it failed to do so, not only in regard to the ability of the complaining party but also by the WTO itself.

Mr. Chairman, you know from your past experience about penalty boxes. A complaining country could have the option to put a specific country in the penalty box for two or three years, during which time that particular country could not launch any complaints under WTO rules or, at the option of that complainant, that country would have to cough up in terms of resources, financial or otherwise, to compensate the complainant.

Otherwise, as in the past, we would have a dispute with a specific country, take that dispute to the WTO and win at the WTO level. When it came time for retaliation, we would find ourselves not importing a heck of a lot from that country, certainly not enough to make a lot of difference, so what would we do? In that case my opinion is that we should have the option of putting that offending country in a penalty box. Once the time comes they would be out of the penalty box, but if they were to do the same thing two or three times the penalty should be increased.

There is another issue. I know that the government and the Prime Minister are exceptionally interested in the issue of access. We must have pretty clear rules when it comes to access. Canada wants to have access to other markets and vice versa. Access is a two way street. We cannot make the rules as we go along. When it comes to one of our largest trading partners aside from the U.S., and that is the European Union, some countries decide at a whim to enact what they call a precautionary clause just because they think there might be a problem, so they penalize others and impose duty on imported goods.

We need to have clear rules of law which means that science prevails, which means when we agree that this particular person is the arbitrator and a decision is rendered we need to listen, obey and comply. We cannot continue turning in circles and penalizing legitimate products coming into our country just because we think there might be a problem but we are really not sure.

Would my colleague agree with me that it is absolutely imperative for Canada and this minister, who is a great minister by the way, to be at the table in order to continue to defend not only the interests of Canadians but the interests of the free world when it comes to transparency, clear rules of law and fairness when it comes to trading?