Ron MacDonald

[Shearwater Development Corporation, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, 26 months ago the Shearwater Base Adjustment Committee was formed to mitigate the loss of over 700 jobs at CFB Shearwater in the riding of Dartmouth as a result of the downsizing announced in the 1994 budget.

The committee was given only $2 million, an amount significantly less than other bases which lost fewer jobs. Nevertheless the committee members have soldiered on, believing that once the transfer of national defence property occurs, Shearwater can become the premier intermodal site on the eastern seaboard of North America.

For two years, the chairman of the Shearwater Development Corporation has been stymied in his attempts to conclude the transfer of DND property. While I recognize there may have been some explainable delays, the fact remains that not on centimetre of DND property has been transferred to the Shearwater Development Corporation.

This situation is completely unacceptable to me and the people of Dartmouth. The potential inherent in the site must not be lost to departmental infighting on the part of some senior bureaucrats.

Therefore I ask my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, to become personally involved in this effort to clear this interdepartmental logjam so that the SDC can get on with the job of creating jobs for Nova Scotia.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the member raises a very good point. An individual convicted of first degree murder will serve a life sentence, no matter whether they do get a reduced

period of time before parole because they served that sentence. That sentence is still applied even though they may be on parole.

This bill states that anybody who is convicted of first degree, premeditated murder will get the minimum of a 25 year sentence but after 15 years may make an application through a new process, an application that does not automatically get heard. It is an application that can be made but not necessarily automatically heard, which is the current case. The hon. member knows that.

Currently anybody who is convicted of first degree murder has a mandatory life sentence with a minimum of 25 years. They can now make an application after 15 years and that application must be heard. It means that a judge and jury must be convened and the judge and jury must make a ruling as to whether or not-

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

The last thing I wish to say to the member opposite who is yelling we will see who wins in Dartmouth, is I have a better shot of walking back into this Chamber than almost anybody because I have not fallen victim to extremists in my riding or across the country.

This country deals with issues such as the criminal justice system, such as social policy, such as maintaining the social fabric of this country, such as ensuring that things like equalization and the concept that the Government of Canada has a role to play in ensuring that programs of national standards go from one end of this country to the other are part of the fabric, something the Reform Party knows nothing about.

Ultimately the electorate will be the judge when the next election comes around and I will tell the members opposite that I do not fear that judgement, whatever it will be. I know the job I have done and my party has done is in the best interest of Canadians.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do not need a lecture from the member opposite on how to read the mood of the Canadian public.

As far as the Canadian public being fickle, I would caution the member to look at the results from the last election with respect to the Reform Party and see where the Reform Party currently sits in the polls.

She says the Canadian public sticks to the topic. I will stick to it as much as she did when she talked abut capital punishment which, by the way, is not covered in this bill.

The member opposite said that 4.6 per cent of households responded, and 87 per cent agreed that capital punishment should be reinstated. I think we have to be very careful here. I remember when the gun legislation was forwarded. I know what the numbers were in my riding and I would like for each of the Reformers to tell me what the numbers were in their ridings.

In my riding 87 per cent indicated they felt very strongly that the gun control legislation put forward in this Parliament by my government should be passed. There was a very small percentage that believed we should not put gun control and the rest did not have an opinion.

The member opposite says I read it wrong. I did not read it wrong at all. If I had just gauged it from the letters that came in from organized lobby I would have thought that everybody in my riding of Dartmouth wanted no part of gun control legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. We cannot govern by polls, which is what the member opposite is telling us we should do.

When you are elected to this place, to the highest court in the land, you take your responsibilities seriously and understand when you stand in your place in this House that it is not just your opinion that you carry but the opinion of the people in your riding. I can tell the hon. member opposite that I do not need polls to tell me what is the right thing to do.

I talk to the people in my riding and I understand that the people in my riding have the same type of aversion to horrible crimes as I have. I do not need to be misquoted by the member opposite. What I indicated was that after there is a particularly horrible crime the Canadian public immediately will probably come up with opinions as to how best deal with it, which are not the opinions in the light of day they would have three, four or five days later.

Rather than having knee-jerk reactions to the administration of justice my government has made a decision to go about this in a very methodical manner to ensure the individuals, the victims, people in the judicial administration are consulted and that we hear from Canadians. Where appropriate, laws are introduced into the Parliament of Canada to adjust those elements of our criminal justice system that need adjusting.

What we will not do, and I hope it will never be done, is that we will become so controlled by extreme knee-jerk reactions, no matter how appropriate at the time, in response to a horrible crime that we start introducing legislation in this place which I believe would do a disservice to the evolution of the criminal justice system in Canada. I will continue to stand in this place on behalf of the good people of the city of Dartmouth and represent them to the best of my abilities.

I think the Reform Party opposite, rather than constantly taking positions for the minority, should think about governing responsibly in opposition, playing a responsible role and start speaking for the majority. The poll numbers lately would certainly tell Reformers they have not been doing that.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

Murderers, I agree. Maybe the members opposite would contain themselves a bit. We have had plenty of time to hear them in debate. Perhaps I could address some of their concerns.

The Reform Party members opposite say to repeal it and they go to the victims of crime. They go to the very victims, the people who have suffered the most and say that if this is repealed, according to the Reform Party's representations during the processing of this bill through Parliament, suddenly everybody who is behind bars will have to come under the new regulations. My understanding of the law is that simply is not the case. It is a fundamental principle of justice that when dealing with substantive issues, they cannot be retrospective in their application.

We have many lawyers. I am not a lawyer. I am just a poor soul from Cape Breton who is representing the good people of Dartmouth in the Parliament of Canada and lucky enough to do it. I talk to lawyers. They tell me that even if we wanted to, if we repealed this bill so that some of those criminals, the bottom dwellers who have perpetrated the most heinous of crimes in society, never get out, we could not do it. A fundamental tenet of justice not only here but in any country that has responsive systems of justice would be violated. As much as some in this place, maybe on our side as well, would like to see that done, it does not have the same impact as some of the amendments would propose.

Nobody on this side of the House is saying that individuals who are convicted of murder should be treated with kid gloves; it is exactly the opposite. What we have to say, as legislators, and what we have to understand is that not every case is the same.

Yes, what we have to do when we craft our laws is to ensure that we do not craft our laws based on a gut reaction as to where it

should be. We must do it on a careful examination as legislators regarding what is workable and what is fair for Canadians.

I have come a long way since I was first elected to Parliament in 1988. When I was elected in 1988, I was one of the people who perhaps was more on the left side of the administration of justice.

I have been here for eight years and have listened a lot to the people of our communities and I have seen the impact of some violent crimes. Members opposite may laugh, but I have seen some victims of crime, young girls of 13, 14 and 15 years of age who had been viciously raped by pimps. They were taken from their communities and became addicted to drugs and prostituted on the streets of Toronto, New York and Niagara Falls. I was one of the people who stood up in my caucus in government and in this place and said that the laws we had dealing with those types of criminals had to be revised and reformed because the sentences simply did not fit the crime or the aversion of the Canadian public to the perpetrators of those crimes.

I will continue to speak up in Parliament for what I believe are necessary reforms to the criminal justice system. But I will not fall off the edge of the world into the right wing abyss which says that everybody who commits any type of crime should be dealt with in a very harsh and uncaring manner by the court system in Canada.

This bill is a step in the right direction. It stops short of lumping all individuals into the same category. It ensures that those people in future who are convicted of multiple or mass murders will not have access to section 745 of the Criminal Code. It makes sure that does not happen. It puts firm rules in place which will stop the frivolous application by criminals of section 745 to gain earlier parole. In many cases it is not to get the earlier parole, because there is no chance for it, but simply to draw more attention to the crimes they have committed.

In conclusion, I support the direction this bill is taking. I fully understand that maybe in one, two or even four years the bill and the entire issue of the application of section 745 must be reviewed. Indeed, when the bill passes this place the Minister of Justice and the officials of the Department of Justice, I would counsel, should keep close watch on its application and implication in the criminal justice system. They should also take into account how this has impacted and what are the responses from the victims of these heinous crimes.

To have a criminal justice system in Canada supported by the Canadian public it must be responsive to the Canadian public as a whole, not just people on one side or the other side of an issue, but for the Canadian public in general.

I applaud the Minister of Justice for this bill. I know he has very strong personal views on this which may or may not be reflected in the legislation. However, I think the Minister of Justice understands how the criminal justice system in Canada must be responsive to the needs, aspirations and the demands of Canadians for a safe and secure society and that those people who break the rules are treated effectively under the law, that people can be rehabilitated, that the resources will be there to do it; but that those people who commit the most heinous of crimes do not have access to provisions for application under the law for early parole.

I think this bill does it and I applaud the minister for it. I look forward to its speedy passage in the House.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be back here in the House. I was off doing some business with international trade last week but I am sure that all of my colleagues conducted the affairs of the House in a manner which would add to the respect of this place.

The bill we are discussing today certainly adds to the respect this place has garnered from the Canadian public. It is a bill that has been very carefully crafted in response to the concerns not just of government members but of members from both sides of this House and clearly of many Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They want to ensure that the Canadian justice system is responsive to the Canadian public at this time in our history.

It is very important when we talk about issues of law and justice that we do not take extreme positions at either end of the spectrum. It is important as we try to gauge what is right for the Canadian judicial system to understand that the vast majority of Canadians, no matter which aspect of criminal justice we are looking at, are reasonable individuals who wish to see the laws we pass in this place not only be laws that are enforceable but laws that are supportable by them. That is very very clear.

One might argue that a law that is not supported by the public is not truly a law. As law makers we are elected by the people to make laws for the people which must be supported by the people.

This bill has come to the floor of the House with a considerable degree of controversy. A private member's bill was presented by one of our members in the last session and it was debated. It caused a lot of very important public debate. We saw a polarization in some cases of those who thought the bill that was debated in the last session which sought to repeal section 745 should have been passed and that the entire section should have been repealed. Very good arguments were made and they were worth listening to.

The bill now before the House seeks to change the application of section 745 of the Criminal Code. Again it has caused considerable debate in this place as well as in the Canadian public.

It is a difficult piece of legislation. As I said earlier, most Canadians are somewhere in the middle of the extremes. We are dealing with parole eligibility for people who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes in our society.

Indeed, after a particularly horrific crime has been committed the Canadian public seems to swing very much to the right. They say that the perpetrators of these crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that there should be no consideration given to the ability of the system to rehabilitate those individuals.

We have all done it; I have done it myself. When we read about a child being murdered or some of the other horrific crimes which human beings can perpetrate on other human beings, the initial reaction is to put the criminal in jail and throw away the key. However, on sober second thought we have to sit back and ask: Is each case exactly the same? Is each case so unindividual in its circumstances that laws should be passed which effectively indicate that anybody who is convicted of any of the crimes covered by section 745 should be automatically treated the same way? Should the key be thrown away? Should there be no possibility even for an application for a reduction in the length of time which has to be served before parole eligibility is attained?

It is a difficult bill. If we had to deal with each case, nearly every member would see that all cases are not the same. There are different circumstances. We are dealing with individuals who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes: first degree murder;

multiple murders; serial murders; second degree murder; treason. These are the most serious crimes one can commit in our society.

This bill probably sets the balance where it should be. The bill as proposed and as presented after report stage seeks to rebalance the system from where it had been under section 745 eligibility to where the Canadian public wants to see it and where our government thinks it should be in the interests of the successful application of justice in our society.

This bill responds to the absolute gut wrenching aversion which each and every Canadian must feel when they see those in our society who have been murdered in cold blood and when they see the horrible crimes which have been committed against our children. It says that those who commit the most serious crimes against Canadians and against humanity will no longer be able to make an application under section 745.

The bill also sets important new parameters. It tries to resolve the undue hardship which the families of victims suffer as a result of some criminals making frivolous applications under section 745. The bill adds a new layer to the application.

Those who are applying under section 745, if they have been convicted of first degree murder, must wait 15 years before the application can be filed. Before the application receives a full hearing, it must go to a superior court justice in the province in which the sentencing occurred. Based on the written evidence only, that justice will now make a decision as to whether or not there is a reasonable likelihood that an application for reduced parole eligibility has a chance of success before a jury.

The current way the system operates is that anybody who reaches that 15-year threshold has a right to make an application which must be heard by a judge and a jury. In many cases, we understand that individuals who have no chance under the rules to have a shortened period before parole eligibility take it to the court to add more public attention to themselves. At the same time they drag the victims' families through the court system who relive the memories of the atrocious crimes that were committed.

This bill addresses that. This bill makes sure that those frivolous cases as they are put forward will be vetted by a superior court judge. If that judge believes there is at least the possibility that the application for parole eligibility reduction might succeed, then it will be referred to a jury.

The other significant change is that in the past, when it was a judge and a jury, and the way it is done under the current system is that only eight out of twelve or two-thirds of the jurors could agree that there should be a reduction in the parole eligibility period. Under the new system it must be unanimous. Twelve out of twelve jurors must agree that the period before parole eligibility comes up should be shortened. Again, this seeks to rebalance the rights of the convicted as well as the rights of the community and the victims' families. It is a very progressive step in the right direction.

There are other important things in this bill. We have to understand that the Canadian public seeks to put law and order on the front burner again. This is one of a series of bills that have come forward in the term of this government to try to address and to rebalance the justice system in Canada.

This bill understands that perhaps some who are on the right wing would say to completely repeal section 745 and treat everybody the same no matter who they are, that somehow that will right the wrongs of those who have been the victims of these crimes.

[Regulations Act, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the question of the hon. member for Lévis concerning the government's contribution on the maintenance on the Quebec

bridge. I would think that as a member from Quebec who has in the past harboured some suspicions about whether or not the federation actually works, the member would be standing in his place and congratulating the federal government on its announcement of a contribution toward the ongoing maintenance of the Quebec bridge.

As the hon. member is no doubt aware, the Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec met last week and discussed various issues, including the Quebec bridge. That very successful meeting is further proof of the good work this federation can do when members of the federal cabinet meet with premiers of the provinces. They can work out some of their differences and do what is best for the country.

It was announced by the Prime Minister that an agreement for a maintenance program had been made. The hon. member is also no doubt aware of the framework of the agreement which was outlined during the press conference held by the Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec. It has been agreed that $60 million will be spent over the next 10 years on a maintenance program. Of that amount CN will contribute 60 per cent, the province of Quebec will contribute 30 per cent and the federal government will contribute 10 per cent.

We are very happy to see the province of Quebec working with CN, the owner of the bridge since 1993, to agree upon an accelerated maintenance program for this important transportation link for the people of Quebec City and all the people of Quebec. In addition to the 14 daily train crossings, 25,000 vehicles use that bridge every day.

Deterioration of the Quebec bridge has resulted from its traffic. Now there is a tripartite agreement between the federal government, the government of the province of Quebec-

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see this bill return to the House at report stage.

In a previous life in a past Parliament I had the privilege to chair the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I thank all members of that committee, including the current chair, the hon. member for Egmont, for the diligent work which was done by them in looking at this bill.

I also commend the hon. member for Skeena who was on the committee. He showed that he has a deep interest and a very deep understanding of the requirement of governments to look periodically at the way they do things with a measure toward doing them a little better, with a little more consistency and a little more efficiency.

With respect to the comments which were made a moment ago by our colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would have to say unfortunately that I cannot be as magnanimous. Some of the amendments which I see in this first batch are not reflective of the support the bill received from a wide variety of sources as we deliberated it in committee. The Bloc Quebecois seemed more interested not in improving the bill but in making statements about Quebec sovereignty and jurisdiction. That is unfortunate but as every committee member has the right to do, their time is their own. It is their own nickel and they can do with it as they see fit.

I cannot help but note that the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois in no way reflected the testimony we heard. Some of the amendments that were put forward by the Reform Party, some of which I did not agree with, had some basis in fact. Individuals we heard had different points of view on various aspects of the bill and the member from the Reform Party would find some support there.

This bill is very long overdue. The individuals we heard from in the environmental sector, the individuals who are most impacted by this bill said that this bill was too long in coming. They applauded that the bill had been put forward. Many had different points of view about various aspects of the bill and suggestions as to how those various aspects could be improved upon. However, they all agreed that an oceans act was long overdue.

With a country like Canada and its maritime coastal zones from sea to sea to sea which is one of the longest continuous coastlines in the entire world, most said it was high time there was some order put into the very statutes and programs the federal government administers which have an impact on the marine resource. This bill seeks to consolidate under one minister, one department and one act much of that activity and much has been done. Over 14 different programs or departmental areas are under one jurisdiction now, that is, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

There was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing from various bureaucrats and various ministries as to why some of the jurisdictional issues should best be left with environment or with natural resources. I argued then as I will today that the oceans act is a good first step but that we must continue to look at some of the areas that might be

better placed directly under the jurisdiction of the minister of fisheries.

I think of some pieces of legislation that are currently with the Minister of the Environment dealing with deep ocean dumping and also with the Arctic Ocean that should be further studied by a committee of this place, perhaps a subcommittee or a joint committee of the fisheries and oceans committee and the environment and sustainable development committee. There has been some discussion and I hope this is not seen as the end of this work but is seen to be the very important beginning of a longer examination.

There were some great witnesses. We heard from many witnesses. We heard from Canadian Arctic Resource Council which was instrumental in guiding us through this bill. When people asked what kind of consultation had been done before the bill came before the Parliament of Canada, all one had to do was look at the CARC brief. CARC had worked for quite a long time and had become the spokesperson for dozens and dozens of interested organizations and groups. When it came down to the short strokes, CARC was instrumental in assisting me as chairman and assisting the committee in coming up with some of the words and some of the amendments that further clarified this bill and made it a better piece of legislation.

I want to thank the people at the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, the many fishermen we heard from, and many others who had an interest and came forward. In every case they came forward with the express interest not of scuttling the bill, not of putting it off, but of genuinely trying to improve it.

This bill works on a precautionary principle. It works on the principle of sustainable development. It clearly indicates that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the primary responsibility in various areas dealing with sustainable development, the marine resource.

It instils in the minister the responsibility to take a co-ordinated approach with his cabinet colleagues and departments to ensure that those principles are the primary principles under which all government programs and legislation is reviewed with respect to Canada's oceans. That is very important.

One of the most important things that has happened and which the bill speaks to is it also ensures there is a new terminology on the Canadian political landscape, which is marine protected areas. For many years environmentalists such as those in CARC and the World Wildlife Fund, fishermen and the Nunavut have indicated very clearly that there is a need for the establishment of marine protected areas in Canadian legislation. These are areas with such unique ecosystems that they must be protected under Canadian law. Someone has to take charge and make sure there is a single individual with the responsibility to protect those areas of our oceans with unique ecosystems. That has been established in this bill. It is probably one reason this bill has received so much public attention and support.

I want to close by indicating how pleased I am that the government with the support of the main parties in the House have agreed to bring this bill back. One concern I had when we ended the last session was that the very good work done by committees would have been for naught.

In this case the committee can stand proud and show that all members, no matter what their political stripe, can have a very positive impact on legislation that goes through this place. There is no question there were some problems. I mentioned that the Bloc Quebecois continued to put amendments forward and they will defend those amendments in the House.

Those amendments were not supported by any testimony we heard. Rather they were a part of their political ideology and philosophy that at every turn in the road they will try to attack anything that even looks like a humiliation of the province of Quebec or that somehow every piece of federal legislation is trying to take something away from provincial jurisdiction. I can say with a clear mind and a clear conscience there is nothing in the bill which takes away from any provincial jurisdiction, including Quebec.

It is unfortunate that the only real problem we had when examining this bill was when we heard from the fishermen and plant workers from Nova Scotia. The problem we had was that an irresponsible member of the provincial legislature, a New Democrat, Mr. Chisolm, who has since gone on to be the leader of the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia, almost incited the fishermen and the fish plant workers into a riot by saying that the bill was going to impose fees, privatize the fishery, and all of these ugly things that people on this side of the House do not support.

What he did was very reckless. My understanding is that Mr. Chisolm, who I guess aspires to be the premier of the province of Nova Scotia some day, did not even bother to read the bill before he set out on his task of going around the province delivering misinformation at every turn of the road. I am sure that Mr. Chisolm has lost some of his personal charisma because the men and women from the fishery who chose to appear before the committee did have a concern and listened to what we had to say. I hope today they are supporting the report of the committee that the bill goes forward expeditiously and finally we will have the Canada Oceans Act proclaimed as law.

[Dr. Jake O'Connor, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with the colleagues of Dr. Jake O'Connor of Dartmouth who have bestowed on him the highest award of the Canadian College of Family Physicians by naming him family physician of the year for 1996.

Dr. O'Connor has been practising family medicine since 1972. He is one of the few physicians, in Dartmouth at least, who still find the time to do home visits for some elderly patients.

In addition to his family practice, Dr. O'Connor teaches a course in family medicine at Dalhousie University's medical school as well as being the chief of staff at the Dartmouth General Hospital.

I speak from experience in saying that Jake O'Connor is a physician par excellence since he is my family physician and indeed delivered my son Matthew to a proud mom and dad only a few short years ago.

Congratulations, Doc, on this appropriate recognition of your commitment to family medicine and the people of your community. Your colleagues have finally recognized what your patients have always known, you are one heck of a great doctor.

[Child Labour, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to personally commend the member opposite for continuing to put before the public in this House of Commons the very important issue of the exploitation of child labour. He has spoken very passionately about the issue for a very long time. There are others in the House who share his point of view. I think the House would like to recognize that.

The reason unanimous consent was denied is not that anyone in this House believes that this issue should not be dealt with but perhaps it was the method of dealing with it. The hon. member's motion in and of itself is very commendable and touches part of the problem but many of us believe the problem is much larger. Those of us who have been in this place for a while know that sometimes there is only one kick at the can on these things. If a motion which only addresses a small part of the problem gets on the agenda and is dealt with, it will be a very long time before parliamentarians are asked to deal with the broader issues in a more substantive manner.

The member knows full well that these issues are dealt with by the procedure and House affairs committee. The bills and motions are drawn. Very many worthwhile private members' bills and motions come up and in its wisdom, that operating committee determines which will be votable. That committee has representatives from the Reform Party, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Quebecois. It decides on the votable items. It does not mean that certain issues are not important but that the committee does not believe they are issues which at that point should be dealt with.

Before I start my brief remarks in support of what the member has put forward today, I am in an unusual position. I am representing the government which believes that this motion, although the intent of it is very commendable, does not deal with the issue broadly enough.

To the member opposite, a letter was sent by our acting House leader to Mr. Craig Kielburger. The House leader said: "As deputy leader of the government in the House, I am prepared to discuss with Mr. Blaikie ways and means of asking the House to pronounce itself on this issue in the very near future. This will have to be done in an orderly process in consultation with parliamentary leaders of all parties". Although consent has not been given for this to be a votable motion, the deputy leader of the government in the House of Commons on behalf of the government has indicated support for the initiative that has been put forward and has put an offer to the member to deal with it expeditiously.

Indeed, the people in the House and across the country will recognize that no less than the Prime Minister of Canada has indicated by public statements abroad, by statements outside of this place and also in the speech from the throne that this is an issue the government takes very seriously. It is an issue on which the government wishes to find a forum to deal with it very quickly.

The Government of Canada is fully committed to action to end this abuse and to work co-operatively at all levels to ensure the elimination of conditions which limit the chance for all children to achieve their full potential.

The validity of the goal underlining the motion is not in doubt. In fact, there is a great deal of logic to the idea that by making the products of child labour unprofitable, the practice will stop. Action against imports is an area where the government continues to struggle in considering the most effective way it can act on its throne speech commitments to child rights and protection and its

fundamental conviction that economic activity and human rights must occur in tandem.

The debate is about whether prohibiting the import of goods made by child labour in and of itself will actually achieve the goal sought. A number of criteria have led the government deliberations on this issue.

Is this action likely to be effective? Will it go as far as the government believes it will have to go in ending the practice? Labour practices which exploit and harm children present a dilemma of the worst and defining problems of underdevelopment; poverty, failed government, weak democratic institutions, just to name a few. Child labour is also a matter of culture and traditional social practice and a response to family poverty and a lack of access to education. Simply banning the import of goods that are made by child labour does not really deal with the fundamental underlying issues.

In well over 90 per cent of the cases, children work in domestic rather than export oriented activities. Therefore 90 per cent of the activities would go unchecked. Import restrictions would not touch these millions of children, nor would they affect the conditions of underdevelopment which allow abusive practices to continue. Development is a key to ending such practices.

There is evidence to conclude that import bans do not effectively reduce the problems associated with export products, as hard as they try. Rather they would drive the children who have been thrown out of the factories into potentially even more dangerous situations. Employers ready to use such practices are devious, determined and skilled. Other children will be found and their practices probably better disguised.

Canada has made significant advances internationally toward encouraging and implementing a rules based multilateral and open trading system. It is the view of Canada that only by working multilaterally with other governments through international organizations, trade organizations, banks, et cetera, that we can truly deal in an expeditious fashion with the horrendous practice of exploitation of child labour.

We have to look at the selection of the best alternatives to end child abuse. It is the view of the government that the most effective use of Canadian policy to end child labour would be: one, through long term development of co-operation aimed at meeting basic human needs, reducing poverty and promoting good governance; and two, through multilateral actions reflecting Canada's fundamental commitments to human rights and to just, equitable and a rules based trade and labour standard system.

CIDA currently spends about $1 million per day directly addressing the development and protection of the needs of children. A number of these programs are aimed at expressly eliminating the causes of child labour, alleviating its most harmful effects and rehabilitating its victims. The Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of National Defence and CIDA are also paying attention to the plight of child soldiers and to children in the context of post-conflict reconstruction and transition economies where child employment, often physically very dangerous, is tolerated and encouraged as acceptable features of rebuilding social and economic conditions.

Through CIDA and human resources development and with active policy support from foreign affairs, Canada has provided a grant of $700,000 to the international program for the elimination of child labour, to implement training to that end based on and in conjunction with countries that have committed to end the practice in their own back yards.

The result of this project will feed directly into conferences to be held in Norway and The Netherlands later this year. These conferences will include over 30 developing and developed countries, including Canada, which will seek to produce real action plans to deal with the real problems of child labour.

Canada was active in the decision of the International Labour Organisation to initiate a new convention to eliminate the most harmful forms of child labour. Foreign affairs and human resources development continue to work closely toward the pending June ILO conference which has child labour as its central theme. The government is also exploring means of providing better consumer education and is working with the private sector and community groups to that end.

Building on the determination of Canadians to play an active role through their governments is a very key part of our commitment. Acting on our commitment in the throne speech, foreign affairs and justice have tabled an act to amend Canada's Criminal Code to permit the prosecution of Canadians who engage in child sex tourism, which is the most heinous form of child labour abuse.

Canada is also working to ensure successful adoption of the optional protocol to the rights of the child concerning the sale of children, child pornography and child prostitution, activities which do not take place only in foreign countries. Unfortunately they also take place on the streets of cities and towns across Canada.

We have also participated in the Americas regional consultation and have contributed substantively to the draft declaration of action in preparation for the conference on commercial sexual exploitation of children to be held in Sweden in August, to which we will be an active participant.

We are learning through like minded countries and through our own experience that success is most assured where multiple approaches which stress local participation in poverty reduction, child care, education and broadly based job creation for youth and adults are emphasized, and where efforts are made on the

multilateral level to implement rules based trade and core labour standards.

The government supports the initiative of the hon. member. However, the government has committed itself in the throne speech and in statements made by cabinet members, in particular by the Prime Minister, to taking its limited resources, its goodwill and its international reputation to the international community to deal with this very real problem.

It is my hope that the offer which has been put forward by our deputy House leader to the hon. member will be taken up quickly. Perhaps in a very short period of time we will find the proper forum and the proper opportunity to have all members of this place participate in the debate to deal with the very far reaching problem of abusive child labour.