Paul MacKlin

[Youth, November 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that very important question.

Under the national crime prevention strategy, we are supporting innovative projects across Canada that strive to foster resiliency in young people and allow them to participate more fully in our society.

In Hamilton for example, the Youth Truth Community Web Project is working with street kids and at-risk youth to develop employment and life skills. This is just one of over 2,500 projects we have supported under the national crime prevention strategy, an initiative that is helping our youth, helping our communities and helping us fulfill our commitments in this--

[Health Care System, October 30th, 2002]

You just said it.

[Child Pornography, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where this member has been. He has to pay attention to what is going on in the House. We have been taking continuous steps in the House to eliminate child pornography. We are very concerned about it.

As far as the Sharpe case is concerned, to which he refers, there is no question that the minister has clearly stated in the House that we will be bringing forward legislative suggestions this fall.

[Child Pornography, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, children are a priority with the government. They continue to be a priority with the government. We brought forward Bill C-15A which was passed in July of this year. It deals with much of the Internet, pornography and the way in which we proceed to catch those who perpetrate this crime.

A recent case has been brought before the courts and we are very happy to see that action is being taken with the tools we have given them to work on this problem.

[Frederick Robertson, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great citizen of my riding and a great Canadian who sadly has recently passed away.

Dr. Frederick G. Robertson was born March 7, 1909, in Belleville, Ontario. He came from a political family, his father being a member of the Ontario Legislature in the 1920s. He was a doctor and businessman, but it was as a member of this Parliament that Dr. Robertson made his greatest contributions to his community.

First elected in 1949 to the House of Commons, Dr. Robertson occupied positions that included Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Dr. Robertson was also a delegate to the 14th Session Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. The dedication that he had to his constituency and to the fundamental needs and hopes of our citizens should serve as an example to us all.

I ask all members to join me today in paying tribute to a great Canadian, Dr. Fred Robertson.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to respond to Motion No. 116 introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona. The motion calls for the government to consider criminalizing the use of cellphones while driving.

Clearly it does identify a serious issue for Canadian society. However let me state at the outset that I cannot support Motion No. 116 for a number of reasons, but let me explain.

Many activities when combined with driving can decrease attention to the task of driving. One aspect of this broad area of driver distraction is driving while talking on a cellular telephone. I understand that the Minister of Transport and his road safety officials are closely monitoring the safety research in the area of driver distraction.

With regard to the criminal law aspect of driving while using a cellular telephone, there is currently no specific criminal offence for simply driving while using a cellular telephone. However it is very important to note that section 249 of the criminal code does criminalize the driver who carries on an activity to the point that it causes such deterioration in the driving that the driving actually becomes dangerous. In some circumstances using a cellphone could contribute to creating a situation of dangerous driving within the meaning of the criminal law, and this is so, regardless of whether the cellular telephone is hand held or hands free.

In 1985 parliament strengthened section 249 of the code by adding two new crimes: causing death by dangerous driving and causing bodily harm by dangerous driving. In the year 2000 parliament added to the criminal code two other amendments related to the failing to stop for police provision, namely flight from police that is aggravated by dangerous driving that causes death or flight from police that is aggravated dangerous driving that causes bodily harm.

Members of the House will recall that the dangerous driving amendment of 2000 came about through a private member's bill tabled by the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge. It is my understanding that those countries and states that do have some legislative ban on cellphones typically prohibit only the use of hand held cellphones while driving. Drivers are able to legally use hands free cellphones. Prohibition is accomplished under the traffic safety legislation and not under criminal legislation.

I remind the House that in Canada it is the provinces that have the constitutional legislative responsibility for property and civil rights matters within the province. This encompasses many matters that are related to traffic safety. Also, provinces are responsible for driver licensing. So far only the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as has been pointed out, is contemplating provincial legislation that would prohibit the use of cellular telephones while driving. On the other hand, Alberta has reportedly decided that it will not prohibit the use of cellphones while driving.

It is my view that we have a balance in Canada that is very appropriate. If a province wishes to ban the use of cellular telephones as a matter of road safety and collision risk, it is free to do so. It is also free to choose what exceptions, if any, there should be to such prohibition.

I do not believe there is any need for parliament to create a specific crime for simply driving while talking on a cellphone. To do so could in effect overturn the decision of a province, such as Alberta, to leave drivers who use the cellphone alone.

I am comfortable with this Canadian approach because I know that if driving while using a cellphone amounts to dangerous driving under the criminal code, then the police can lay a criminal charge under section 249 regardless of whether the provincial legislation permits cellphone use while driving or not. Any provincial permission to use a cellphone while driving cannot be used as an excuse to committing the criminal offence of dangerous driving.

Many Canadians who are very prudent in their driving habits will never talk on any cellphone while driving. This no doubt is the safest course. Other drivers will talk only on a hands free telephone and only when parked. Still others will talk on the hand held units if their province does not ban it without driving in a manner that is dangerous.

The criminal law is society's strongest sanction against behaviour that is typically morally blameworthy or dangerous. When looking at a particular kind of conduct we must ask ourselves whether the criminal law is the most appropriate instrument to address the conduct or whether other measures might better serve the purpose.

In the case of driving while using a cellphone without any hint of dangerous driving, provinces can choose to prohibit this activity. A driver could receive a fine, or a ticket and possibly a driving licence suspension were a province to create such legislation. However if parliament were to criminalize the act of driving while talking on a cellphone, the cohort of individuals who now use cellphones while driving and who could be criminalized would be enormous.

The hallmark of an offence placed in the criminal code is that incarceration is part of the range of potential penalties. A conviction carries a criminal record that could disentitle the offender from entering a foreign country. Given recent world events there may be countries that would make the decision to exclude any visitor from Canada who has a criminal conviction without considering whether the same behaviour is permitted in the home state or country.

Before turning to the criminal law as a solution there must be other instruments that could be chosen if it is desirable to end the behaviour of driving while using a cellphone. Driver education, provincial driving licence measures and provincial fine measures immediately spring to mind. These may well be more appropriate in addressing many forms of driving distraction and not just driving while using a cellphone.

If a cellphone presents a driving distraction problem that requires the weight of criminal law, then what other driver distractions might also require the weight of criminal law? Would it be necessary to criminalize other distractions even when they do not result in actual dangerous driving?

I appreciate that Motion No. 116 brings forward a serious matter for Canadians. We are all concerned about road safety. However I cannot support Motion No. 116. Our criminal law already does criminalize cellphone use while driving that results in dangerous driving. If provinces wish they could act through provincial legislation to prohibit cellphone use even if it does not result in dangerous driving.

The government does not happen to agree that driving while using a cellphone requires parliament to employ the criminal law against this behaviour.

[Independent Public Inquiry, June 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the discussion on Motion No. 387 respecting sentencing, corrections and conditional release.

I understand the concerns that motivate the hon. member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin to make these proposals. For hon. members opposite, inquiries or system reviews are code words for let us get tougher, lock up more people for longer periods and throw away more of the keys. The government is equally concerned about providing additional safeguards to protect the Canadian public, but we are not ready to change a system that works simply because the official opposition thinks maybe that is where the votes are.

The hon. member wants to appeal to this electorate by making sentences more onerous and by delaying or eliminating conditional release in all its forms for particular categories of offenders that he considers most threatening. He just will not come out and say it.

That being said, even if we take the motion at face value, the proposals contain no ideas. Again and again during the consideration of private members' business and particularly when issues of public safety and criminal justice are involved, I am reminded of the response sometimes heard in question period: the hon. member just cannot take yes for an answer. The parties opposite insist on replaying questions which have been answered, making demands that already have been met, and in some cases bringing up matters that were resolved years ago.

Motion No. 387 proposes an inquiry into the correctional system that was reviewed thoroughly just a short time ago. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights made a thorough statutory review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the government responded by accepting almost all of the recommendations less than two years ago. Would the initiative proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin enhance public protection, prevent crime or even save lives?

As far as the area of sentencing is concerned, I simply would state that the idea of examining this is redundant. The Department of Justice is sensitive to emerging needs and continually monitors existing legislation. As far as the get tough ideas, the Alliance would like to see us push forward through another consideration of the justice system.

The Criminal Code of Canada has been toughened repeatedly to respond to demands for more stringent treatment of particular categories of offenders. To touch on a few examples, the code provides for the designation of dangerous offenders who are then subject to mandatory indefinite sentences. Upon conviction of serious harm offences, the courts may specify that the offender must serve one-half rather than one-third of his or her sentence before even being considered for parole.

Further, courts may invoke the long term offender provision created in 1997 that entails up to 10 years of community supervision after the normal sentence has been served. The hon. member from Saskatoon has not made it clear what sentencing measures he might recommend, or for that matter what he considers wrong with those that are in place, or how his proposals would create safeguards beyond those already available.

It is apparent from his comments in this place that his presumption is that the law should be able to prevent every crime. We will continue to proceed in a manner that would lead us in that direction. There always will be crime unfortunately with tragic consequences, but these are the rare exceptions to the overall successes of our criminal justice system.

The police, courts and correctional system deal with social misfits who have demonstrated a disregard for the law. I am sure that common sense would lead to the conclusion that it is quite likely some of them will break the law again no matter what their sentence might turn out to be.

Over the last decade parliament has pursued a series of measures that have increased penalties and restricted releases. On the sentencing end of things it is sufficient to say that there has been considerable movement over recent years toward the punitive end of the scale.

I would now like to look at the correctional implications of these get tough proposals that are disguised by the hon. member as a call for an inquiry.

Would the administration of the sentences be made more efficient? Would there be measurable improvement in the supervision and control of offenders? Would Canadians benefit in any way?

In answer to these questions I would like to devote my allotted time to sharing with the House and with all Canadians some thoughts about public safety, the correctional system and conditional release as it now exists to provide a basis for our consideration of the changes in this area proposed by the motion before us.

It may be helpful for members to know something of the conditional release process and the roles and responsibilities of the correctional agencies of the ministry of the solicitor general, Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board.

In each of these debates it becomes clear that some hon. members do not hear or do not wish to hear the true state of affairs in this important area. These agencies within the solicitor general's portfolio as part of our criminal justice system deal with two fundamental issues that lie at the very heart of what defines the quality and nature of the culture of the country.

The first of these is public safety, an issue that is of paramount importance. The passage by parliament of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in 1992 enshrined in law the principle that the protection of society should be foremost in the minds of those entrusted with the administration of court imposed sentences in the federal correctional system.

The second issue is the importance of human freedom as emphasized in the correctional system by the deprivation of that freedom. This is the most extreme sanction the courts can impose on Canadian citizens. There must be a rationale for applying this penalty that is based not only on denunciation and the desire to punish but also on a fair assessment of the results of incarceration.

The correctional service is responsible for the administration of court imposed sentences of two years or more in ways that contribute to the safety of the public. Its employees, both in federal institutions and the community, deal with more than 20,000 offenders each day of the year and must carry out the responsibility in a society which places an enormous importance on the rights and freedoms of all of its citizens.

How the correctional services and parole board go about their business is a matter of concern not just to a small minority but to all Canadians. Nobody should think that a decision by the National Parole Board to release an offender to the community is made lightly. The decision making process is objective, careful and thorough. It is quite obvious that any release decisions are framed by court imposed sentences.

Correctional staff who make these assessments and recommendations and the parole board members who independently consider release decisions are our neighbours. Their children walk the same streets and attend the same schools as our children do. They are as unlikely as any of us to put an offender's desire to be free ahead of public safety. They apply their training, common sense and grasp of the detailed information before them to each application for conditional release. It is not in their interests to release individuals likely to commit violent offences or those whose victims might be children.

We hear from the party opposite and its supporters in the media that the government favours the rights of offenders over the rights of victims. As I pointed out, this is absurd. The government consists of people trying to do the best job they can. No right thinking human being, politician or not, would take the position of favouring offenders over the protection of their own families.

There is some evidence that what we are doing is right. The rate of violent reoffending by released offenders has dropped a full 45% during the last seven years. This proves that our approach is right, not perfect, but is moving in the right direction.

What I have been saying about offenders applies to most within the correctional system. They come from our own communities and most will return to be our neighbours. It is in our interests to be more thoughtful about how we administer their sentences, not simply to make sure that their sentences are long and miserable.

All of this being said, we will continue to work to improve the criminal justice system but this motion is not necessarily the way to go.

[Intoxication of Migratory Birds, June 13th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to review the steps the ministry has taken with respect to the Faroese and the Estonian fishery.

Since we have closed our ports we actually have now entered into negotiations with these fisheries. We do believe we will arrive at a successful conclusion with them.

Going back to the same basic problem though, in the end if we do not support the NAFO process of regulation we will have nothing. I think that is where we have to exhibit a strong, united front with respect to the stakeholders, the provincial interests and the federal interest in this entire process of keeping a good, solid fishery for the east coast.

[Intoxication of Migratory Birds, June 13th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for his continuing interest in the situation facing the community of Canso, Nova Scotia.

The minister has heard the frustrations expressed by fishermen and industry representatives throughout Atlantic Canada about foreign non-compliance with the rules of NAFO.

The Government of Canada takes the issue of foreign overfishing very seriously. We know the very real toll this issue can take on communities like Canso that rely on a strong, healthy fishery for their livelihood.

We have taken action. We have closed our ports to the Faroese and the Estonian fishing fleets because of their non-compliance with NAFO's conservation measures.

We are also pleased that Russian authorities responded to Canada's concerns in a serious fashion and revoked the Olga's licence to fish in the NAFO regulated area for the remainder of the year, and that it will conduct further investigations into this vessel's activities.

Canada will not tolerate the systematic and wilful abuse of NAFO quotas and rules that has been exhibited by these fleets. DFO officials continue to monitor the fishing activities of all fleets in the NAFO regulatory area to ensure compliance. If there is evidence of non-compliance, appropriate action will be taken on a case by case basis.

Having said that, the department fully recognizes that more needs to be done.

At the most recent NAFO meeting, which was held from January 29 to February 1 in Denmark, we brought the problem of foreign overfishing to the table. We achieved positive results on a number of fronts.

However, some of our key conservation proposals did not meet with success.

As the minister has said before the House, DFO officials are currently in the process of developing the strategy in preparation for the NAFO annual meeting this coming September. I can assure the House that the department will work with our provincial and industry partners to put together the strongest case possible for that September meeting.

I know that some members of the House would prefer a more drastic, unilateral course of action such as the extension of Canada's fisheries jurisdiction beyond the Canadian 200 mile limit to include the nose and tail of the Grand Bank and the Flemish Cap. This approach is misguided.

A unilateral move by Canada to extend its jurisdiction over fisheries, either through custodial management or outright extension, would be seen by the international community as the same thing and inconsistent with accepted international law. Other nations would never accept this.

It is important that Canada work with the NAFO process. Indeed, without NAFO in place the entire Atlantic fisheries resource would be jeopardized. That is certainly not the way to manage a fishery.

Indeed, there are challenges with regard to NAFO but there are no easy solutions to these challenges.

We must work diligently and with our international partners. That is what we intend to do when we put forward our case in September.

In the meantime, I can assure members that the minister will use any and all tools at his disposal to stop overfishing outside Canada's 200 mile limit, and ensure a strong, sustainable fisheries resource for Atlantic communities in the years to come.

[Intoxication of Migratory Birds, June 13th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House today in connection with the motion by the member for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert concerning the regulation of lead sinkers and jigs for fishing.

I support the intent of the hon. member's initiative and I commend her for bringing this important issue to the attention of parliament and to the Canadian public.

Every year in Canada, water birds die from the ingestion of lead sinkers and jigs. Lead sinkers and jigs are a concern because water birds can mistake them for food or stones that they swallow to aid in their digestion or ingest them while consuming lost bait fish. A single lead sinker or jig is sufficient to expose a loon or other water bird to a lethal dose of lead.

Recreational anglers often attach lead weights to their fishing line to sink the hook and bait or lure in the water. They may also use lead jigs, which are weighted fish hooks. Fishing sinkers come in all shapes and sizes and scientists estimate that about 500 tonnes of lead sinkers and jigs are lost in Canadian waters every year.

In Canada, the bird that is most commonly reported as poisoned by eating lead sinkers is the common loon. Ducks, geese, swans and herons are also known to swallow fishing sinkers. Sinkers weighing less than about 50 grams or smaller than 2 centimetres are the ones usually swallowed by these water birds.

The actual number of birds poisoned by lead is not known but poisoned birds hide themselves and die in out of the way places where they are never found. They are also eaten by predators which leave no trace of their prey. What we do know is that, depending on the location, poisoning from swallowed lead sinkers or jigs accounts for up to half of all common loons found dead in eastern Canada and the United States.

Many bird populations are shrinking because their habitats are being destroyed. Lead poisoning is one more problem that confronts these birds. That is why conserving these birds and protecting them from hazards that we can control is an important undertaking.

The government is currently moving ahead with the completion of the enactment of the species at risk legislation. To date there are no reports of any endangered birds having died from the ingestion of lead sinkers or jigs. We must be extra vigilant with these species since the death of even a few birds may affect the survival of an endangered species.

As implied in Motion No. 414, loons are one of the main species affected. We know there are between 250,000 and 500,000 common loons breeding in Canada and that overall the loon population is not in decline.

A variety of environmental contaminants, including acid rain, mercury and lead, have an impact on the common loon. However the relative influence of these and other stressors, such as disease, predation and severe weather, on the health of the loon populations is unclear. This is not to minimize the impact of lead on water birds and loons.

We now know that an estimated 500 tonnes of lead in the form of lead sinkers and jigs may be lost in Canadian waters annually by approximately 5.5 million anglers who participate in recreational fishing each year.This represents about 14% of all lead releases into the environment.

We also know that lead poisoning from these releases has an impact on wildlife, particularly water birds like the loons. We know that in locations where recreational angling occurs, lead sinker or jig ingestion causes adult loon mortality and is the leading cause of death for loons in these areas. Recent studies indicate in Canada lead poisoning accounts for 22% of adult bird mortality where mortality factors are known.

Because of these facts the government is committed to addressing the issue. Any action must be done in a way that is supported by all stakeholders. The issue of lead toxicity is not new and the government has addressed various aspects of lead toxicity in the past, including when lead was found to have effects on wildlife.

When the severity of the problem to waterfowl from lead shot was understood, the government undertook a phased in approach to the banning of lead shot.

Beginning in 1991, Canada banned the use of lead shot in hot spots across the country, places where of course lead shot poisoning of waterfowl was known to be a problem. These areas were mostly in eastern Canada and a province-wide ban was established in British Columbia.

In the intervening years the Minister of the Environment banned the use of lead shot for hunting in national wildlife areas and for hunting most migratory birds in and around wetlands. A full national ban came into effect in the fall of 1999.

As we found with the situation with lead shot, immediate regulatory action on lead sinkers and jigs would severely impact manufacturers and retailers. These companies now have inventories in place for the coming summer fishing season and indeed many have sinkers and jigs in sufficient quantity for the next year or two. Additionally, it will take a little time for the industry to ensure that there are sufficient non-lead sinkers and jigs for anglers.

Moving too quickly, for example, on a regulation could create availability problems for alternatives. However, it is important to note that the number and availability of non-toxic alternatives continues to increase and importantly the cost of these alternatives is similar to lead sinkers and jigs.

The member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert is proposing action and action we will take. Most important, we will consult with all stakeholders and ensure that a regulation or other instrument regarding prevention or control actions in relation to lead weights and baits can be supported by a comprehensive impact analysis.

From our experience with lead shot as outlined earlier, it is clear that an education and awareness program would help to ensure a smooth transition to non-toxic alternatives. It would be important to work with the industry to determine how best to provide samples of these alternatives to anglers. For example, perhaps the enhanced use of exchange programs where those who possess lead sinkers could trade them for non-toxic alternatives would foster a speedier transition to non-lead sinkers and jigs. The cost and benefits of these types of programs would have to be determined.

I am convinced that all these and other actions will in the end achieve the objective of Motion No. 414 by building support from the very people who will ultimately determine whether this effort is successful and by setting the stage for regulatory or other policy instrument or approach.

I would like to thank the hon. member for her interest in this issue and in the welfare of Canada's wildlife.