Ted McWhinney

[Oceans Act, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of leading off this final debate in the House of Commons on the oceans act, which confirms Canada's role as a world leader in the management and protection of oceans and marine resources. It is a bill in which I take a great interest because of my training in international law, including the law of the sea.

The bill being presented to Parliament is an extremely important one for two reasons. First of all, this bill confirms Canada's role as a world leader in the management and protection of oceans and marine resources. Second, this bill is proof that our Parliamentary process can work in the best interest of all Canadians.

The bill which was introduced June 1995 was very good legislation. The bill we have before us today, however, is much better legislation. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Dartmouth and then under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Egmont has demonstrated the thoughtful, practical and far sighted vision Canadians expect from members of Parliament.

Last September the former minister of fisheries and oceans told the House of Commons we want the strongest possible bill that can be provided. In doing so, he called the members of the standing committee the conscience and the voice of the oceans.

The standing committee conducted an exhaustive and pragmatic review of the bill. There were and there are some disagreements, as there almost always are, on the details of comprehensive legislation. Those differences were aired in a spirit of honesty, and an earnest exchange of views between committee members and witnesses allowed for some common ground to be found.

When the former minister had the chance to appear before the committee, the opposition members gave him a fair hearing. The hon. member for Gaspé, representing the Bloc Quebecois, showed a keen interest in this bill as he provided his views and concerns with the bill. These issues were thoroughly discussed and debated at that time, and some consensus was reached despite his very profound differences on other issues of national importance. And the Reform Party represented by the hon. member for Skeena showed a commitment to put the well-being of our oceans above the well-being of our respective political parties.

Indeed it was the member for Skeena who stated at the committee: "I would like to say that the principle of the bill is valid and it is past time that Canada should adopt such an act".

The legislative process, the committee process, has worked partly because the government has responded positively to suggestions made by members of Parliament. The real success, however, comes from the fact that the standing committee listened attentively to the recommendations, a wide range of witnesses and then acted on those recommendations by suggesting improvements to the bill.

Jeremy Bentham recognized that law is not made by judge alone but by judge and company. The member for Dartmouth put it this way at committee: "People outside of the ministry and outside of senior advisors to ministers actually have a role to play in ensuring that there is better legislation".

The witnesses making valuable contributions to this bill ran the gamut from the Canadian Nature Federation to the Naval Officers' Association of Canada, from the Snow Crab Fishermen's Association to the Inuit Tapirisat, from the Newfoundland Oceans Industries Association to the Pacific Fishermen's Alliance. Canadians

spoke, the standing committee acted, the government acted and now Parliament is acting.

The oceans act accomplishes three key legislative ends. It stakes out Canada's jurisdiction over 6.5 million square kilometres of ocean areas. It establishes the framework for proactive oceans management strategy based on collaboration among all Canadians. It gives authority to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to act as the federal lead in ocean related policies and activities.

The basic principles underlying the bill are quite straightforward. The first principle is that we must ensure the sustainable development of our oceans. The economic and environmental actions we take to meet our needs must not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

The second principle is the need for integrated management of activities in our marine coastal waters. For too long we have allowed our actions to be thought of sector by sector. We cannot afford to compartmentalize ocean activities, because each of these activities can have a profound impact on the health and wealth of the oceans as a whole.

The third principle is the need for a precautionary approach to oceans management. We must choose to err on the side of caution. We cannot take the risk of destroying our oceans ecosystems forever because we took a gamble today.

This bill has been a long time coming. Over 70 per cent of our planet is covered by oceans. Canada's oceans have shaped us a country and defined us as a people. Our oceans have long served as beacons of hope for individual success and collective prosperity. Our Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic waters make Canada the only country in the world with three distinct ocean ecosystems. Our country has the world's longest coastline.

The simple fact is that Canadians, whether we live along the coast or thousands of kilometres inland, have long had a love affair with the oceans. We have long shown strong international leadership on the protection of ocean resources. It is time to turn those noble sentiments into wise policy. It is time to back up our strong global voice in ocean resources with strong domestic action.

Canada has never had a comprehensive co-ordinated blueprint for responsible management of our three oceans and the renewable and non-renewable resources they contain. It is time to lead by example. It is time to respond to changes in international law and to advances in environmental understanding. It is time to end what the former national advisory board on science and technology, now the Advisory Council on Science and Technology, called our haphazard and ad hoc approach to ocean policy.

The World Commission on Environment and Development and the Rio summit both called for actions taken in this legislation. Our experience from resource crisis and the turbot dispute calls for the actions undertaken by the bill. Our oceans are deeply important to Canadians. We need to exercise jurisdiction over those oceans not only in the interests of Canadians but in the interest of the wonders those oceans contain.

The national advisory board on science and technology specifically called for an oceans act. At the meeting in Charlottetown last November provincial and territorial fisheries ministers publicly endorsed the intent of the oceans act. At hearings across the country during the last year, Canadians from every sector and every community overwhelmingly urged the adoption of an oceans act.

Bill C-26 will formally define for the first time in Canadian law a 12 nautical mile contiguous zone and also an exclusive economic zone that stretches 200 nautical miles from our coasts. In the contiguous zone, Canada will have new powers to enforce our customs and tax laws. In the exclusive economic zone, Canada will control the management of all resources. What is most important is that this new jurisdiction enables Canadians to apply the same environmental laws to our oceans as we apply in the rest of Canada.

Having staked out that jurisdiction, Bill C-26 establishes the basis for an oceans management strategy. This will allow Canadians to develop and implement high standards for ocean stewardship, high standards for partnership and co-operation and high standards for meeting national goals based on regional and local needs.

The foundation of the new strategy will allow Canadians to accept shared responsibility for ocean knowledge and understanding, marine resource management, marine environmental management, coastal economic development, ocean safety and continuing international leadership on ocean issues.

Bill C-26 obliges the federal government to rationalize and modernize its own ocean policies and programs.

At the present time, management responsibilities for oceans and marine resources are handled by 14 government departments and agencies. The oceans act clearly designates the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as the primary federal body with responsibility for these areas.

This means the elimination of overlap and duplication. This means a considerable increase in federal government accountability. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will not pass on to others the responsibility of taking action where oceans are concerned.

The debate on this bill has raised certain concerns that I feel deserve our attention.

There have been some fears raised that the oceans act may somehow be a means to deal indirectly with fisheries licensing and allocation issues. This bill is not about the setting of fish quotas or privatization of fisheries. This bill is not a fisheries management act. It is an oceans management act.

Parliament will be dealing with a new fisheries act. When it is debated I am certain it will spark, to put it mildly, lively debate. I trust though that members of Parliament will not delay the oceans act because of disagreements they may have over the future fisheries act. That would be a very unfortunate undermining of the really good work we have accomplished on the bill currently before the House.

Another concern raised about the oceans act is that it may lead to more bureaucracy and higher spending by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We want to guarantee to Canadians that the reorganization of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has resulted in significant spending cuts. Following the merger of DFO and the coast guard, the total reduction in net spending will be about $500 million by the year 2000.

The final concern raised by Bill C-26 is that it might give jurisdiction to the federal government at the expense of the provinces and territories. Let me make it as simple as possible: There is zero impact on the jurisdiction of the provinces or territories. This is not a bill about taking power from other governments; it is about bringing governments and people together to manage our oceans with intelligence, innovation and consensus.

In fact, I think it is fair to say that the legitimate reservations anyone may have had about this legislation were thoroughly considered during the committee hearings and thoroughly addressed through the valuable amendments made to the bill. The preamble to the bill is considerably stronger than it was only a few months ago.

The final bill underscores that our three oceans are the common heritage of all Canadians and that conservation based on an ecosystem is essential to the diversity and productivity of those oceans. The preamble now contains a clause which states that Canada will promote the application of the precautionary approach in order to protect resources and safeguard the ocean environment.

The preamble also highlights the point now made repeatedly throughout the bill. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will work with provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal organizations and bodies established under land claims agreements, as well as other federal ministers, boards and agencies to develop a comprehensive oceans management strategy for Canada. It emphasizes the important function of other levels of government and aboriginal people in assuring that a national oceans policy truly serves all Canadians.

The improved bill strengthens both the power and the fairness of enforcement procedures. The Government of Canada now has clear authority to prevent the entry to Canada of any person in the 12 nautical mile contiguous zone who is likely to commit an offence in Canada. The law now authorizes search and seizure and arrest powers in the contiguous zone if there is reason to believe that an offence was committed on Canadian territory.

The bill has been substantially strengthened by obliging the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to show leadership in the establishment of marine protected areas. As amended, this bill enables the establishment of marine protected areas for a variety of purposes. These include: the conservation and protection of commercial and non-commercial fishery resources including marine mammals and their habitats; the conservation and protection of endangered or threatened marine species and their habitats; the conservation and protection of unique habitats; the conservation and protection of marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity; and the conservation and protection of any other marine resource or habitat as is necessary to fulfil the mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The standing committee has made it clear that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may recommend regulations on zoning or the prohibition of activities within marine protected areas in order to protect fish and marine mammals, endangered species and their habitats, and any marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity. This is a major step forward in assigning responsibility and power for the creation of a national policy for the establishment of marine protected areas. The standing committee also amended the bill to give the minister emergency powers to protect any marine resource or habitat which is deemed to be at risk.

The original version of the bill authorized the minister to set marine environmental quality guidelines. The new version authorizes the minister to give those guidelines the force of normal regulations and also gives the minister the authority to set the duties of officers designated to enforce those regulations.

Once again, these amendments illustrate that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is the conscience and the voice of the oceans.

It could have been tempting for members of Parliament from coastal communities to water down environmental provisions of the bill in order to ensure short term economic gains for their communities. They have done exactly the opposite. They have toughened up the environmental provisions of the bill. They have strengthened the provisions to guarantee sustainable development, integrated management and a precautionary approach to oceans issues. They have made the substance of the bill reflect the preamble of the bill.

The standing committee has also toughened up the requirements on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to show leadership, to

seek consensus, to take action and to be held responsible for his actions. This same spirit of political accountability is found in amendments which make the minister, not senior officials, responsible for coast guard services and hydrographic services.

The minister will be ultimately responsible for federal policies on the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships, including aids for navigation, pleasure craft safety, and marine pollution prevention and response. The minister will be responsible for setting hydrographic standards and for providing hydrographic advice, services and support to other governments and international organizations.

The bottom line is that the standing committee has amended the bill to give the minister more powers to do the job of protecting Canada's oceans. The bottom line is also that the committee has amended the bill to make certain that the minister cannot hide behind public servants or cabinet colleagues in carrying out those powers.

There is one more amendment which deserves special praise. Clause 42 of the bill has been expanded to permit conducting studies to obtain traditional ecological knowledge for the purpose of understanding the life and the mysteries of our oceans. That is a very smart move. The people who for generations have survived by and on the oceans have enormous knowledge of currents, tides, temperatures and marine organisms. They more than any of us appreciate both the fathoms of the ocean and what is unfathomable.

When you live by the sea, you learn to revere the sea. I am certain all of us have much to learn from that hard won and time honoured knowledge. The truth is of course that Canadians have been learning about the oceans ever since the first inhabitants of our far north crossed over the Bering Strait from Asia thousands of years ago.

The oceans act is the modern day expression of what we know and what we do not know, where we are and where we must go. For all the accumulated wisdom, for all the international calls to action, for all the hard work by researchers, environmentalists, businesses, fishers, aboriginal peoples, governments, coastal residents and others, we are still only at the stage of saying it is time to claim full jurisdiction, time to get the federal government's oceans management structures in order and time to pull together on devising a long range oceans management strategy.

We are not yet at the stage of having a complete oceans strategy in place. The bill does not attempt to do that. Effective strategy can only come about through the formation of collaborative agreements among all Canadians and the acceptance of responsibility by all Canadians.

This bill provides the mandate and the basic tools to develop the strategy but it is only a beginning. Leadership by the federal government is important but we will only make the best decisions with local leadership, community involvement and an ongoing willingness to create a collegial, collaborative, holistic, cross-sectoral, cross-country approach to the management of our vast and diverse ocean resources. That is the new pluralism in our federalism and federal government.

This bill sets the stage but it is up to Canadians now to write the script and play our roles. Planning for the ocean jobs of the future is not a one day nor a one person operation. Decisions that affect our children's future and our grandchildren's future require the input, the initiative and the involvement of us all.

We do know that this bill may need to be revised in the future, that we may need to hold ourselves to account. To reassure those who worry that we may not have crossed every t or dotted every i in this bill, there is a critical and democratic improvement recommended by the standing committee. The amended bill now requires a review of the administration of the oceans act within three years by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Parliament will have the right and indeed the duty to ensure that both the provisions and the operation of the oceans act meet the desires of Canadians and the needs of our oceans.

We all know from our contemporary history that Canadians have an enormous capacity to come together in order to defend the interests of our ocean resources internationally. It was two years ago that Parliament passed Bill C-29, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, and Parliament passed it in two days. We know that Canadians will come together to support our global oceans conservation measures and that they will put aside partisan differences to do so.

Canadians all agree on the need to rally in support of the wise and prudent precautionary management of Canada's oceans and ocean resources. The bill before Parliament calls upon us to rally domestically for our oceans in the same way we are willing to rally internationally. The organisms of our oceans would not know one politician from another. We know however that unless we act to protect those organisms, they may not survive and we will all be the losers.

It has been 50 years since the Right Hon. Lester Pearson called upon Canadians to demonstrate international leadership through national commitment on the law of the sea and the oceans. It has been nearly 40 years since the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker ensured that Canada took a position at the vanguard of the first UN conference on oceans. It has been nearly 30 years since the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau and our current Prime Minister as one of his colleagues acted to protect Arctic waters from pollution prevention. It has been nearly 20 years since our current Governor General asserted Canada's 200 mile fishing zone.

As members in this House, we do not, perhaps, have the vision of Mr. Pearson and of Mr. Diefenbaker. What we do have, however, is the common ability to work toward the achievement of their vision of a responsible country that undertakes to do what it can to resolve the major issues facing this planet.

We have in common the ability to introduce an oceans act, which marks a step ahead in meeting our own needs, while respecting those of generations of Canadians to come.

This is a good bill and it has been made much better by the diligence and the energy of a broad array of Canadians and by the very effective efforts of all members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

We encourage members of Parliament to pass this bill with enthusiasm and with optimism for the future.

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting if somewhat unresponsive debate. I will raise some of the key points that have emerged as I have listened to the various orators.

It is charged that it is a grievous crime that there are not enough Liberal members from B.C. That can be corrected in the next election. But I would raise the basic point that it is not the number of members, it is the quality of the representation. I made the point in another context with the former Conservative government, which I think was historically well accepted, that they had more effective representation of B.C. in the period 1984 to 1988 with only one powerful minister than in 1988 to 1993 when there were four or five ministers, one being a prime minister in waiting. It is the quality of the advice and whether the people work together as a team that counts.

Let me run through some of the achievements of which B.C. people can be proud in this period of office of B.C. members. One is the TRIUMF facility. Does anyone know how many hours of work that represented, carrying it to the cabinet, discussing it bilaterally with a minister, discussing it with the western caucus, persuading other regions of the country to waive their claims? We made the case that B.C. leads in these areas of fundamental scientific research and there is a significant spin-off to export industry. We brought forward the statistics: $200 million export contracts in foreign trade spun off from TRIUMF, in order to retain TRIUMF. Give us the money for that. B.C. leads. $167.5 million spread over five years is a significant gain. That took some hundreds of hours of work from my office and that of other members.

Canadian Airlines. We made the point to the cabinet that it is vital to have two national airlines in Canada and that it should use its power as a federal government to control the international air routes, which were given under the foreign affairs treaty making power. Use that to persuade one of the parties to cease aggressive litigation. The result of another few hundred hours of work, discussion in the western caucus, discussion in the national caucus before a Prime Minister who listens was 7,000 jobs retained in the greater Vancouver area. That is an achievement. A minister who listened and a minister who said the work was there and who said he had been persuaded.

B.C. as a distinct society, the notion that we should be considered as distinct a society as any in Canada, but with the important constitutional implications. B.C. is a fifth region and if there is to be any constitutional veto, we are entitled to that as much as anybody else. That was accepted again. It took arguments with ministers, arguments with cabinet, the case presented in the caucus. That is teamwork.

Softwood lumber. My colleague, the member for Vancouver South started this. But the argument that historic rights were a key part of federalism in Canada and should be respected were key in maintaining B.C.'s historical quota. That argument was made by the B.C. members and it won and the results are there. Not everybody was happy with this. In fact, some of my colleagues from other provinces have asked: "Have you not managed to get too much"? We said: "We have made the case. If you have a good case, carry it forward". That is the essence of a good MP carrying the case for his or her province in Ottawa. It is the not the number of MPs but in fact the quality of their representations and whether they do their homework. Somebody was referring to the media and its power. I have appeared frequently on CFNW. I have been there for 20 years off and on with my old combatant and good friend, Rafe Mair. I was on his program and was congratulated on what we had managed to do on the airlines. Someone asked: "What have you done about the francophonie Olympic games?" I said: "Look, I am working on softwood lumber. It is a full time job. Give me some extra colleagues and maybe we can delegate to them the francophonie Olympic games". This is not to say that it is not an important question but there is a limit to our physical capacity to handle many jobs together.

On the record, I believe we have done well. It reflects the basic condition in British Columbia. We are the fastest growing area of the country but it is more than that. It is more than the influx of population. It is the new dynamism. It is the feeling that Canada is moving and we are moving more quickly than anybody else.

It is one of the reasons why, in this repeated discussion of constitutional change, that we have said we would like a larger vision. It is mistake to jell the status quo. We want to build a Canada for the future.

Is British Columbia opposed to Quebec? Not on your life. I know no reasonable, responsible British Columbian who is opposed to Quebec, to French Canada or the French language and culture and its influence on our society. If it is simply a matter of repeating what is already international law and constitutional law by virtue of the military agreements of 1759, the Treaty of Paris 1763, the Quebec Act of 1774 and the Supreme Court Act of 1875 so far as it relates to Quebec representations in the Supreme Court of Canada, there is no problem in British Columbia. In fact, there is no particular constitutional obstacle.

It is when we get into the specifics of constitutional change that we face the basic issue that we have been in some respects in a constitutional straitjacket since 1982. We have pointed out that some matters for change require 10 out of 10 provinces to agree. Other matters require only seven out of ten but it may take a

Supreme Court decision to say which is which. In the meantime, we have to recognize that politics is the art of the possible.

That is why I and others welcome the agreement, in which we have played some part, between the Government of British Columbia, which is not of the same political ideology as the present Government of Canada, and the Government of Canada, the memorandum of understanding to study together the future of the west coast fishing industry.

If we want to change the Constitution, we are into this basic problem, section 91.12. It is section 91 and 92. On many views change in section 91.12, by formal amendment, is a 10 out of 10 question. It is at least a seven out of ten and with every constitutional change involving British Columbia's consent, we have to have the prior approval of the people in a referendum. Former Premier Van Der Zalm's government introduced it and it is the law. It is respected by everybody.

However, there is nothing to say that we cannot change the Constitution in other ways, that we cannot reach co-operative federalism by a joint understanding of principles and policies for future development that we would work out together. This is changing the Constitution in a practical way if it works, and the best energies of the British Columbia government we are assured and certainly the federal government are devoted to this.

I will repeat again that the Constitution is changing. British Columbians welcome the change in the Constitution. Probably at a certain point we will be suggesting the simplest of all methods, a constituent assembly. However, it is a country still in growth and, as we know from the experience of the 19th century codification, to act too early is frankly to jell social change prematurely. We are looking at this, but in the meantime we are doing our best to change the Constitution in practical ways.

The decision of the federal cabinet on softwood lumber is a vindication of the classic principles of federalism. The intervention of the British Columbia caucus was very positive and very direct.

I respect the problems to which hon. members opposite have referred. I understand the concern of members of the Bloc in relation to the marine service fees. There has been reference to the fact that 75 per cent of the witnesses took one view and only 25 per cent the other. Have they considered the reality that in British Columbia we work collegially? It is much better to have one or two solid pieces of testimony from British Columbians in favour of the differential fee for the main services fee, the principle of user pay, if they represent the same number of people as the 75 per cent. In other words, the numbers game does not work. It is the weight of the testimony which is crucial.

I would remind members of the official opposition who raised this issue that the matter is still open to examination as the experience with the marine service fees is worked out.

With respect to the closing of military bases, I argued the case successfully for extending the Chilliwack base by a year. I argued the case in relation to Royal Roads. The difference in the two cases is that in Royal Roads the provincial government and the local communities came up with alternative plans which were accepted.

I regret the closing of Chilliwack, but I accept the notion which all opposition members have raised. If we want to balance the budget and reduce external debt, then something has to give. The sacrifice, as long as it is equal, is something which we can share.

[Lobster Fishery, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as has been stated, we are aware of the conservation imperative. It is the prime obligation of the department. The issue is under investigation.

If violations occur they will be prosecuted under the Fisheries Act. I can assure the hon. member that we will still try to achieve, allowing for the political facts here, the amicable settlement which we all desire. But if necessary, the regulations will be enforced by prosecution.

[Lobster Fishery, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the Listuguj First Nation, in claiming historic rights, as was amply vindicated in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada, asked for a permit. It was issued a communal licence by the department. The communal licence established very serious restrictions in the interest of conservation measures, limits as to the number of catch, limits to the type of gear to be employed. Those restrictions are enforceable under the Fisheries Act.

We are aware of complaints of violations and these are being investigated. If necessary the restrictions will be enforced. Obviously it is in the interest of all of us to achieve an amicable settlement. The hon. member will agree with that. The department is examining that with all parties. However, the regulations will be enforced if necessary.

[Criminal Code, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-45, at the same time to ask the House to reject the six amendments that have been proposed.

I would like to take this opportunity to signal the sensitiveness of the government to debate in this House. It is worth recording in respect to two private members' measures that came before us which touched, somewhat peripherally in one case but nevertheless in the spirit, on the bill now before the House. The member for York South, if members remember, had his own private member's bill in relation to section 745 of the Criminal Code.

I and government members supported this private members' bill as a vehicle for conveying to the government the feeling that in striking the balance among conflicting interests, the balance had shifted perhaps a little too far away from the protection of the community, and that it was time to make a correction.

We have all moved a long way, of course, from those antique conceptions of the 19th century when the only aim of criminal law was to punish the offender. It was not a very effective measure of social control and we have moved to other methods that more closely study society.

In this sense the government has recognized that in spite of the statistics showing crime is on the decrease, there has been an increase in the intensity of certain types of crime; mass crime, serial crimes and that a tightening of community controls is warranted here. This explains the elaborate screening devices that have been set up here. It is a response to the sentiment that this House expressed.

By the same token, the member for Saint-Hubert brought forward an excellent private members' bill in the spring which I and other government members supported. It was addressed, really, to the issue of protection of witnesses or victims in criminal trials.

It has been noted that many of the accused took the opportunity of further harassing their victims by vicious forms of cross examination. I would have thought, as a jurist, that could have been corrected by judicial action. A judge, after all, is there to protect the community, which includes the victims. Nevertheless, the bill meets this problem.

I am interested to note the debate in Great Britain in the last week on a very similar problem with exaggerated circumstances. Here, in this bill, it is certainly a design of the government to prevent persons who have been convicted and who are using the system under section 745 as an extra form of harassing victims' families.

There have been such cases noted and it is good that the government has tried to close the door on that type of situation. It does represent a response to the spirit the member for Saint-Hubert brought forward in her excellent private member's bill.

In another way also, we have responded to the situation of victims of crimes. This is not the 19th century. It is certainly not the earlier pre-common law period in the history of our law in which vengeance was the motive of the criminal law and the victims had the right of exacting sanctions. Not at all. It is a recognition that the viewpoint of the victims is a legitimate factor in considering the issue of sentencing, that it is a legitimate factor in considering the aspect of parole.

I am reminded that years before I entered this Chamber as a lawyer, as a sometime juris-counsel, I was approached by the family of one of the victims of a mass murderer in the Vancouver area, the Rosenfeldt family, the husband, the wife and their lawyer. They raised the agonizing tribulations they had been through while their child's fate was unknown. They have devoted a life since to attention to criminal law and attention to protecting society and at the same time ensuring that victims' views are properly presented in a way compatible with our legal traditions and our legal spirit.

I notice here that in a very proper and balanced way, the attitudes of victims' families can be presented in the government's bill.

There is a response by the government to a feeling as expressed in this House on both sides, that the shifting balance in criminal law needs correcting in terms of a stronger protection of society based on the increase in intensity of crimes, if not in the actual percentage of crimes. I think this is recognized in the structured

system that introduces the judge, the jury determination and the insistence, which is the history of the common law, of unanimous jury decisions before a parole board can operate. This is a good response again to the sentiment expressed in this House.

As for the point I have made again that the parole application should not be used by a vicious criminal without repentance as a method of further harassing victims' families, this is contained and overcome by the structured system of preventing purely frivolous applications for parole. Finally allowing the victims in a way that is sensitive to the duties of all us to society to express their opinions on criminality on the particular case before the court, I think this is reflected in the bill.

For these reasons I suggest with respect to those members who have taken the care to offer these amendments that the amendments be rejected and the bill as presented be adopted.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. May I compliment him on his patience and durability in sitting through an exhausting and some would say interestingly combative debate. If it was not the eleventh hour as some of our predecessors in the debate eloquently suggested, it is at least the witching hour and it is quite clear that all honest people and all MPs should be home in bed at this hour. It is a tribute to our staying power in the service of the state.

The proposal by Taro Aggregates Limited for the east quarry landfill in Stoney Creek is presently being reviewed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy under that province's environmental assessment process. The proposed site would be used for non-hazardous waste.

We understand that under Ontario's process a decision on the project or a decision to submit the project to a full Ontario public hearing will be made by the Ontario Minister of the Environment and Energy, the Hon. Brenda Elliott.

With respect to a federal environmental assessment panel, the project is not subject to the federal environmental assessment process as described under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. A federal review process will therefore not be established.

The federal process is only triggered when a federal agency is a proponent, provides funds or loan guarantees, administers the project lands, or issues permits or licences which enable the project to take place. None of these conditions are in effect for the Taro landfill proposal.

We gather that a number of groups, including the Hamilton Regional Conservation Authority, have reviewed the project's plans and have asked the Ontario Minister of the Environment and Energy to hold a provincial public hearing for the proposal under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.

We have been advised by Ontario region that in past years a private company owned the landfill site known as the west quarry adjacent to Stoney Creek. The site received residential and industrial garbage but was not an "engineered" site with a liner. It reportedly was the source of some local groundwater contamination by chlorides.

This west quarry site was taken over by Taro-Philip Environmental and remedial measures were taken at the site to stop further groundwater discharges. The west quarry site is not presently in use, but the site has not been formally closed.

The Hamilton-Stoney Creek area needs a disposal site for industrial non-hazardous waste to replace the Glanbrook landfill which is nearing capacity. Taro-Philip Environmental has proposed

the use of an engineered landfill with a proper liner at the east quarry, next to the inactive west quarry facility.

It is this proposal which is currently under review by the Ontario government. If the hon. member has any further concerns about the project, we would advise him to make submissions to the Ontario Minister of the Environment and Energy.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, although he will pardon me as a student of oratory in suggesting it was less of a question than a philippic. Nevertheless we can bring some light into the darkness.

The Pacific salmon revitalization strategy was announced on March 29. It is clear that some fundamental structural problems in the B.C. salmon fishery must be resolved if we are to meet two objectives, ensuring conservation of the resource and promoting the viability of the commercial fishery in the future.

Problems of excess capacity and declining returns in the commercial fishery are not new. Over the past 15 years there has been a commission of inquiry on the state of the B.C. fishery and several task forces which recommended fundamental change. But the will to take the necessary steps simply was not there.

The Pacific revitalization strategy is a six point plan including conservation as a priority intersectoral allocation device, new licensing measures, a licence buyback program, transition measures and new institutional mechanisms.

There has been criticism of the strategy, particularly from coastal community representatives. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans listened to these representatives, travelled to B.C. and met with fishing industry groups and announced modifications to the strategy on May 9, 1996. These minor adjustments were based on consultations and included the announcement of a salmon licence fee holiday for those who choose not to fish in 1996.

The minister announced on June 14, 1996 the preliminary results of the implementation of the strategy. New licensing measures, including single gear and area licensing, have been successfully applied to 97 per cent of the salmon fleet. Indications are that more than 250 licence holders intend to take advantage of the new licence stacking provision that permits one vessel to fish in two areas.

The licence buyback program has achieved half of its targets in the first round with the retirement of 411 salmon licences, 10 per cent of the fleet, at a cost of $42 million. On the recommendation of the independent fleet reduction committee, the minister has announced a second round of the buyback program in an effort to realize the fleet reduction target of 20 per cent set out initially.

This program is about choice, and the results indicate the fleet has been prepared to make the difficult decisions required to contribute to the long term protection of the salmon resource. These changes are also necessary to make the industry more viable.

This strategy addresses immediate concerns before the 1996 season, and the minister has invited the input of the round table steering committee on longer term issues as implementation proceeds.

[Replica Guns, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I recently visited the David Livingstone Elementary School in Vancouver and met with the very young but very bright students at their invitation.

They are concerned that replica handguns and other weapons that are astonishingly realistic are readily available in local convenience stores. Such replica guns have been used in hold-ups and similar acts of violence. Police officers report that in crisis situations they have been unable to distinguish them from the real thing.

The David Livingstone Elementary students want the federal government to ban the importation, sale and manufacture of all such replica guns in Canada. They have put together a petition of more than 2,000 names which I have passed on to the Minister of National Revenue for consideration.

[Cyprus, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of the motion by my colleague from Saint-Denis.

I have a sense that I have been here before when I look at this resolution. I wrote on the Cypriot constitution of 1960, three decades ago, that it was an example of a perfect constitutional document conceived by the dry light of reason, but one had great doubts about its capacity to survive. Legalistic solutions are not viable in isolation from the society in respect to which they operate.

I knew the German scholar who was largely responsible for the 1960 constitution. The checks and balances were there, the perfect equilibrium of forces, but it did not work. I think it is an example of the optimism of the late 1950s and 1960s that solutions were possible by legal means without necessarily understanding the underlying social forces.

There are reasons why the motion by the member for Saint-Denis is timely and helpful at this stage. It is true in relation to conflict resolution that when the parties are at each other's throats and the blood is there it is difficult to arrive at rational solutions. There is a moment, however, when exhaustion and attrition step in and it is almost a truism that it is the time in which to move. One would have thought that after 20 more years of conflict this would be a good time for third party initiatives, particularly one as determinedly neutral in its application as the suggestion for a United Nations demilitarization and the replacement of the armed forces of the warring parties by a UN force.

UN peacekeeping is a Canadian development, a Canadian idea. Prime Minister Pearson suggested it first and he won his Nobel prize for basically suggesting that at the moment when the parties have everything to gain by solution it is right to offer a face saving device, interposing oneself as a neutral force between them.

If we look at the possibilities for Cyprus, of the accession to the European Union, which is conditional upon the peaceful process being attained, this is good for Cyprus. It is good for the plural communities in Cyprus. Therefore it is right to bring our efforts to bear.

There is a role for Canadians in this. One obviously is to offer our services as part of a United Nations force. The second, though, is to offer our experience in a country that is a plural society our solution in terms of constitution making. The thing that is very clear is neither the Westminster model, the British made in Westminster style federalism, which is too rigid in its a priori categories, nor the German model, the Bonn model of 1949, which was essentially used by German jurist Forsthoff as an inspiration for the 1960 constitution. Neither of these has the outlook toward pragmatic adjustments of conflict that our original Westminster model constitution of 1867 has developed through time.

I can see a role for a Canadian parliamentary initiative with the support of our Minister of Foreign Affairs in which we could say federalism is more than rigid a priori forms. It is a process. It can be achieved in stages, step by step, étapisme in the conventional terminology. We are prepared to offer on an all-party basis the help of Canadian parliamentarians in setting together the basis for institutional co-operation between the different communities on a basis of respect for the rule of law and due process in dealings between citizens. This is an example of federalism as process, federalism in motion, to which our Canadian experience is peculiarly suited.

I ask hon. members to express, as they have in this debate, their support for this excellent idea and its timing. It is right, the notion that a UN force should replace the warring parties armed forces, that we should offer help in federalizing the relations between the parties, not necessarily in terms of an ideal blueprint constitution they might find difficult to accept tomorrow but in terms of concrete steps through institutional co-operation in which we can provide our continuing effort and support.

The very good thing in this debate is that the speakers from all three parties, all main parties, have spoken as one in looking for a peaceful solution and in an approach with a very constructive spirit. This is something that should encourage our foreign minister in offering Canadian good offices and providing the bridge to the types of arrangements that have been discussed widely in all parts of the House.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, can I put a question to the member for Chambly? He certainly remembers the friendly agreement between Premier Lesage and Premier Robarts of Ontario, who was a constitutional adviser at the time. That agreement was respectful of the territoriality principle and it was carried out by all of Mr. Lesage's successors. It stated that the protection of the minorities' rights within each province should be entrusted to the province.

In this sense, I think we should admit that Prime Minister Trudeau, who maybe deserves a bit more recognition on the part of members across the way, and whom we should trust as we used to, had that same attitude concerning Bill 22, the censorial bill, preventing disputes before the Supreme Court of Canada, except in some rare instances.

Does the member agree that today, this principle of territoriality must make way for the principle of nationality or personality-how should I say-under the common law or otherwise? We must recognize the undercurrent we find today in linguistic and cultural policies. Maybe things have to be different now.