Alan Tonks

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Anyone who has hunted ducks or geese will know that the regulations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act are in place to ensure that hunting never threatens the survival of the hunted species. These regulations are amended annually, taking into account the status of bird populations. Canadian officials meet with their United States counterparts, comparing information so that there can be consistency in approach.

The result of this system, using scientific information derived in cooperation with the U.S. government, consultations, regulations and, where appropriate, enforcement, has ensured that the overhunting of migratory birds will not put any species at risk. Indeed, under this consultation regime, Canadians and Americans continue to enjoy healthy populations of waterfowl.

As has been pointed out by other members, the Migratory Birds Convention Act deals with hunting, but it is not just about hunted species. In fact, the majority of species protected under the act are non-game species. Many other species that could be game species under the migratory birds convention are not hunted in Canada, such as the white-rumped sandpiper.

Before I tell hon. members about the sandpiper, it will be of interest to persons in the House to know that when the original Migratory Birds Convention Act was debated here, the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was leader of the opposition. He rose to make the point that I am making now, that the Migratory Birds Convention Act must not be just for the protection and use of hunted species, but for the protection of the valuable and much appreciated non-game as well.

The migratory birds convention makes an international commitment for Canada ensuring the preservation of migratory birds while they are within our country, using a uniform system of protection. The Migratory Birds Convention Act and the migratory birds regulations accomplish this. They fit together to make an effective system for the protection of bird species from unsustainable uses.

As part of this protection, it is illegal today to put substances such as oil into habitats frequented by birds, but the system is not complete. This bill ensures that such provisions and prohibitions can be enforced to the edge of Canada's exclusive economic zone if need be.

The migratory birds convention was amended in 1995. Those amendments were brought to this House in 1999. One of the most important steps taken in these amendments was to modernize the convention wording. In 1916, when the convention was first drafted, words such as habitat and conservation did not have the meanings that we use today.

United States President Theodore Roosevelt is given credit for developing the concept of conservation for wise use, thereby initiating the concept of conservation in its modern sense. Conservation as applied by President Roosevelt meant that any uses of nature should be sustainable, that management should be backed up by scientific study, that all natural resources in an area are interrelated, and that conservation is a public responsibility.

The migratory birds convention has always been a model for international management of shared species. Brought up to date with the 1995 amendments, it speaks of principles of conservation. Among these it states that migratory bird populations should be managed internationally, across borders, that a variety of sustainable uses should be ensured, and that habitats for the conservation of migratory birds should and must be protected.

These are good sound principles for birds and for Canada. If we look to the sustainability of bird life, we will in large measure ensure our own future and preserve Canada's unique position among the world's nations as a place of abounding natural beauty and resources.

Protecting birds and their habitat is not only important to ensuring the sustainability of the Canadian economy, it also provides direct economic benefits. As stated in the national round table on environment and economy's report: “The case for nature conservation in Canada is more than simply environmental, aesthetic or spiritual: it is increasingly economic”.

Let us talk about birds and the economy. The economic contribution of birdlife in Canada has been estimated to number in the billions of dollars annually. First, the amount that people spend directly on bird related nature activities comes close to a billion dollars.

According to a survey conducted by StatsCan, Canadians spent almost $824 million as part of their annual hunting activities in 1996. Of this amount, that year, bird hunting accounted for $184 million. In the same survey, wildlife viewing accounted for approximately $1.3 billion.

Other surveys have shown that expenses primarily related to birdwatching make up the largest portion of wildlife viewing expenses. The economic value of bird related activity comes close to a billion dollars.

Beyond this, consider the economic activity that is coming from nature related businesses: tourism, retail sales, outdoor goods and a wide variety of service industries. They all benefit from secondary economic effects from hunting and viewing of migratory birds. Information gathered by the survey outlined the importance of nature to Canadians. That showed that nature related activities generate approximately 215,000 jobs in Canada. Our estimate of the economic benefits of birds rises from the first billion to several billion dollars.

Let us talk just for a moment about birds as national symbols. Despite the compelling argument that these economic figures present, not all of society's needs can be quantified or translated into economic terms. Canadians assign intrinsic value to the natural environment and birds are part of the national identity and are of tremendous cultural and spiritual importance to Canadians.

Attempts to ascribe a value to the ability to watch a great blue heron in its early morning hunt or a flock of dunlins feeding at Robert's Bank along their annual journey will inevitably fall short. While many describe this value in the context of the quality of life benefits associated with the natural world, the importance of nature transcends these simple measures for many people and many cultures for whom it is strongly linked with their spiritual and in fact religious beliefs.

Let us talk about the impact on human health. I have spoken of economic benefits and of the spiritual benefits. However, the benefits in terms of the impact on human health cannot be understated or overrated. These actions to protect the ecosystems of migratory birds are an important element of sustaining human health. Healthy wetlands, for example, are not only important to many bird species and other wildlife, but are also integral to maintaining water quality and the quality that human life depends on, healthy forests that provide for habitats for birds.

I could go on in terms of safe sources of food and drinking water, and clean air that we breathe and relate that to a quality of life that we enjoy.

I have spoken about the value of migratory birds generally and it is tremendous. I have also spoken about the value of birds as food. Two species valued for their meat in Newfoundland, for example, bring us back to the Grand Banks. Busy shipping lanes and the results that oil spills have had have been devastating to the fisheries in Newfoundland, and have had an impact across our country and an impact throughout the world.

I am satisfied and I hope that members of the House will support this bill. The Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, will be better, not only when the topic is the oiling of birds at sea, but for the protection of migratory birds throughout the country.

I urge the House to support this bill. I know that all members of the House can look forward with me to the day when the sight of oil stained dead and dying seabirds in the bays and on the beaches of Canada's coast can be forgotten.

[Natural Resources, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and relates to a draft agreement that would give the governors of the eight states that border the Great Lakes the power to unilaterally decide on diversions of water from the lakes.

Since 1909 Canada and the United States have exercised shared sovereignty and responsibility for the Great Lakes through the boundary waters treaty.

Would the minister please outline what action he is taking that would ensure U.S. respect for the shared authority approach that has existed since 1909 to ultimately ensure that the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes is preserved?

[Infrastructure Program, October 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on October 21 the province of Ontario announced that $680 million from the provincial gas tax will be allocated to transit authorities across Ontario over the next three years.

Would the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities outline whether this deal will impact his approach to the delivery of a portion of the federal gas tax for sustainable infrastructure projects in cities and communities across Canada?

[Quarantine Act, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is probably, on the ebb of the SARS epidemic, one of the most serious pieces of legislation on public health that the House will deal with. I attempt to introduce some degree of seriousness here, because from my perspective as the member for York South--Weston there is a very moving context that this legislation fits into.

York South--Weston has West Park Hospital, which back in the turn of last century, in the 1900s, was the national sanatorium, the Toronto hospital for those who had tuberculosis. That was the plague of its time. Because no hospital could be located in populated areas due to the nature of the concern, the Toronto hospital was located in what was then a very rural and remote area.

I mention that to underscore how important this legislation is against the temper of these times, because the temper of those times was that no one wanted to risk being associated with people who had tuberculosis. After the SARS epidemic, it was ironic that this same hospital, now called West Park Hospital, was where those who had been infected, the medical health practitioners, doctors and nurses and all of those in a medical interface who had come into contact with people with SARS, actually were placed in quarantine. It is funny how the same conditions of the 1900s with respect to tuberculosis applied most recently with respect to SARS.

I say that because we have to look at the nature of our response in the context of the times. Are the institutional support mechanisms within the health care framework equal to the task of dealing with the nature of a disease in present times? I think the provisions of health care were tested to the extreme.

Regarding this legislation with respect to quarantine and updating the Quarantine Act, it has been very well documented what the present screening and provisions are, but I think it is important to state what the new powers are.

The new powers are to update the act to provide the flexibility of response, which would include the ability to divert aircraft to an alternate landing site if necessary, to isolate passengers, to establish quarantine facilities at any location in Canada, and to order that carriers from other countries or regions of the world not enter Canada if there are serious concerns that such on arrival may threaten the public health. That is an additional power.

It is important, I think, to also understand that within the context of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and existing legislation, the RCMP, if and when appropriate, can be called in to back up the decisions that are made by medical health officers and by officials if need be.

There also is a new power under the proposed act which would provide that conveyance owners must report an illness or the death of a passenger before arrival. That would then allow the Minister of Health to take whatever proactive action is required before the aircraft actually lands.

It would give new powers to the minister to appoint screening, quarantine and environmental assessment officers, to establish quarantine facilities, to take necessary possession of premises if and when required to use as detention facilities and, as I have said, to divert conveyances.

I think it is important also when we ask under this act if officials can detain departing passengers, because we live in the global community and of course all these recommendations are being made within the context of the World Health Organization framework, which, along with Canadian officials, is not only concerned with those coming from other countries. Are we as equally concerned with respect to those departing Canada who might infect other countries as result of early appearance of the kinds of diseases we are attempting to deal with? Equally important, there are provisions in the bill that place the onus on our framework to also protect the citizens of other countries.

I think this is extremely relevant for the House against the concerns that have--

[Criminal Code, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure today to rise and speak in support of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code, mental disorder. The bill, as has been pointed out, will make many improvements to the law that governs those persons who are found unfit to stand trial and persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

I will focus my remarks on the provisions of Bill C-10 that seek to repeal provisions of the Criminal Code that in fact were never proclaimed in force.

Hon. members may be curious about why it is even worth noting, since the repeal of unproclaimed provisions merely clarifies the status quo. It is true that the repeal of the unproclaimed provisions will not change the applicable law. However, it is important to highlight the fact that the current reforms, which once and for all will repeal old reforms, reflect the government's belief that these provisions are not needed and will not be needed in the future.

The repeal will bring certainty and clarity to those who may hold out hope for these old provisions, which indeed we now agree do not reflect the goals of protecting public safety and providing treatment for the mentally disordered accused.

Bill C-10 repeals three provisions of the 1991 amending act that were never proclaimed. These are: first, provisions related to capping; second, the dangerous mentally disordered accused provisions; and third, the hospital order provisions. I will be dealing with each of these individually.

Capping provisions were originally designed to ensure that the supervision of those found not criminally responsible would not be longer than the maximum sentence available through a criminal conviction. The maximum periods, or caps, would depend on the offence committed and would range from life to two years or less.

Capping provisions were included as part of the 1992 reforms. The initial postponement in proclamation was necessary to permit a review of all persons held under a lieutenant governor's warrant to determine whether the person should be subject to an increased cap. The delay was also intended to allow the provinces to make necessary amendments to their mental health legislation to ensure that those discharged at the so-called cap would be subject to mental health legislation where necessary.

However, provincial mental health law is not designed to supervise potentially dangerous persons, nor is it designed to protect public safety. As a result, amendments were not pursued by the provinces and territories.

The standing committee in its 2002 review called for the repeal of the capping provisions. The current law in part XX.1 of the Criminal Code, without capping, provides the appropriate balance between the accused's rights and the public's right to safety. Several accused persons have appealed their dispositions, arguing that if they had been convicted they would have served a short sentence. However, because these accused were found not criminally responsible they may have dispositions that restrict their liberty for longer periods than any court sentence for the same offence.

The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly established that sentences for convicted offenders should not be compared with dispositions imposed where an accused is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is not punished. Rather, they are assessed, treated and supervised until they can be absolutely discharged.

The absolute discharge may be appropriate soon after the verdict or years later depending on the mental condition of the accused and the risk to public safety. The nature of the offence may have no bearing on the disposition for a not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Capping should therefore be repealed once and for all.

The dangerous mentally disordered accused provisions, secondly, were linked to the capping concept. They too should be repealed. These provisions would have enabled the prosecutor to apply to the court, after the finding of not criminally responsible but before the disposition is made, to make another finding that the accused is a dangerous mentally disordered accused.

The criteria and procedure were modelled on the dangerous offender provisions that apply to sane convicted offenders. If the accused was found to be a dangerous mentally disordered accused, the court could have then increased a 10 year cap to a maximum of life, but only for “serious personal injury offences”, including various sexual and violent offences. These provisions were very narrow in their proposed application and would have only permitted the longer cap for some of the most dangerous and serious offences.

The DMDA provisions and capping provisions are interdependent and are therefore being repealed together. The repeal of capping and the related DMDA provisions, coupled with the amendments to better protect the rights of permanently unfit accused, will continue to reflect the goals of our criminal law system, including protecting the public.

The hospital order provisions would have applied to convicted offenders, not those found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. These provisions are also proposed for repeal.

Hospital orders were intended to provide a mechanism for short term treatment of a convicted offender who, at the time of sentencing, was in an acute phase of a mental disorder and in urgent need of treatment to prevent further mental deterioration. An offender meeting this criterion would be sent to a psychiatric facility for a period of up to 60 days rather than jailed.

The provisions are being repealed because there is a general view among stakeholders that the current system can accomplish the intended purpose of hospital orders without a statutory provision. In addition, the code provisions are too narrow in their application to address the nature and range of mental disorder present in the convicted offender population. Proclamation of the hospital order provisions would not address the larger problem.

The repeal of these three provisions reflects the government's commitment to fair and effective laws that are clear and up to date. I think all members of the House would agree with that objective.

While it may seem odd to dwell on these aspects of Bill C-10 that may seem of little consequence because they seek to repeal provisions that were never really part of our operating law, I hope members will agree that clarity is necessary and that our parliamentary record should reflect how and why our policy and law have evolved.

I encourage all hon. members to support these provisions that have been put forward in Bill C-10.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could outline what he thinks and feels would be an equitable formula with respect to the gas tax being used as a basis for meeting the kind of needs that he very eloquently outlined that exist in a very dynamic municipality where we have agricultural and rural interests. However, we also have a need to build such things as light rail transit connecting up the various parts of the corridor that Cambridge and Kitchener-Waterloo in fact are extremely dependent on in terms of moving people? Would the member provide some insights based on his experience on that?

[Lifetime Achievement Award, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Dr. Jane Goodall. Dr. Goodall is in Ottawa today to receive the lifetime achievement award from the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Fascinated by wild animals since she was a child, Dr. Goodall first formally worked with them in Kenya in 1957. There, she worked with famed anthropologist and paleontologist, Dr. Louis Leakey, researching the work of chimpanzees.

Soon thereafter, she returned to Tanzania to continue research. In fact, she was the first to observe chimps using twigs as tools, an observation that changed the way we understood the distinction between primates and humans.

She established the Jane Goodall Institute in 1977. The institute supports research across the world to protect chimpanzees and other animals in their African habitats.

Today, Dr. Goodall continues to share her message of hope for the future and to encourage youth to make a difference in their world.

[Hurricane Hazel, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate an important event in the history of Toronto.

From 7 a.m. on October 14 to midnight on October 15, 1954, Canada's most devastating hurricane struck southern Ontario. Hurricane Hazel swept through Toronto at 110 kilometres per hour with 200 millimetres of rain in a 24 hour period. Bridges and streets were washed out and thousands were left homeless, with trailers and houses washing into Lake Ontario.

In total, 81 people were killed, 32 in the riding I represent.

On October 16, 2004, York South—Weston will be commemorating the event with a memorial following a walk organized by the Weston Historical Society. Attending will be political officials, firefighters, police, EMS and residents who survived the hurricane.

I invite the House to join me in honouring those emergency workers and ordinary citizens who served their communities so courageously during that deadly storm and remember those who lost their lives.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question that has been raised by the member. I cannot give chapter and verse with respect to the shipbuilding industry, but I can say that the government, through its regional economic development strategies, sector-specific within the regions, has attempted to invest and reinvest in a full spectrum of industries that have found themselves in a decline due to changes in the marketplace and in the world order as a result of changes in modes of transport and so on.

I do not think, though, that the member's point with respect to the shipbuilding industry is enhanced by his lead-in, which points fingers at another industry that finds itself caught in the competitive global environment, the aerospace industry, which also affects the jobs of thousands and thousands of Canadians. If I may suggest, I do not think it enhances the argument, which I take by inference is focusing on the shipbuilding industry, to say that we should not invest in other parts of the economic spectrum, where jobs equally are extremely important, both the direct jobs in the aerospace industry and the indirect jobs, the spinoff jobs and the multipliers that come from it.

Equally, the shipbuilding industry is caught up in an extremely difficult international situation and is equally entitled to both the regional and the sectoral concerns and considerations of the government. I might add it is my understanding that several years ago there was a report on the shipbuilding industry that had all party support. In fact, the government has embarked on the implementation with respect to labour strategies, investment strategies and support strategies for the shipbuilding industry.

Perhaps it is time that we re-evaluated just exactly what has been accomplished. I would suggest that the member take the government up on that by taking that matter before the relevant committee.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged to rise today and to offer a number of observations with respect to the throne speech.

Before I do that, I would like to congratulate members who have been elected for the first time to the House. I have always found it a humbling experience recognizing the responsibility that our constituents and Canadians place on us. There really is no greater humbling experience than to have the opportunity to be here.

Second, I would like to congratulate those who have been returned. I am sure they will be peers who will offer the kind of advice that will help new members carry out their responsibilities. In short, it is a great place to be. I am pleased to be here and I thank the constituency of York South—Weston for sending me.

It is always convenient for us to talk about all of the things that cumulatively we want to do, that we strive to do, but unless we have a sense of the fiscal discipline, which really is the platform and context within which we can deliver on promises, and if we are not upfront in terms of fiscal discipline, then we are not being upfront with the people of Canada.

In the throne speech the concept of fiscal discipline is introduced and, as a reminder, we have looked at the past two or three decades to find the precedents where we have not provided a legacy for future generations that is sustainable in fiscal terms. We know that in the 1990s, beginning in 1993, the Liberal government of the day under the leadership of the former prime minister and the minister of finance, the present Prime Minister, had to grapple with realities to put our financial house in order.

Too often our corporate memory is such that we are selective in terms of things we want to remember and in terms of things we do not want to remember. One thing we should remember is that all of the possibilities with respect to dealing with our environmental challenges and prerequisites, our opportunity to strive for a higher level of social justice, and the ability to invest in young Canadians who will be future workers in the workplace and to invest in new technologies are entirely dependent on setting in place a base of fiscal responsibility. We are the beneficiaries today of the hard choices that had to be made back in those days.

Underlying the theme of the throne speech is the notion that while we are investing in health care and our ability to broker peace in the world, that at the same time, we must also create prosperity, and from that prosperity continue to pay down on a debt that would fetter future generations in terms of the kinds of decisions that they must make.

I would like to emphasize that past parliamentarians on both sides of the House have had to struggle with that equation: how do we pay down on the debt, but at the same time invest in the social, economic and environmental issues that will create a higher level and quality of life for Canadians?

It is very shortsighted for us to not understand the need to build a consensus within our federal relationships.

While the throne speech did not come right out front and say how we are to do this, what it did do was use the consensus that was built with respect to the health care program, the 10 year program that was arrived at through deliberations with the provincial governments. The throne speech emphasizes, I think, how important it is that the culture of Canadians--and I would say the culture of this House--has to support the search for finding a consensus.

Often we hear talk about the democratic deficit. We tend to think of that democratic deficit in terms of how Parliament is elected and whether we should have proportionate representation or whether the committee system and the structures can work better. But often we do not talk about the culture, which is to try to find those ways non-confrontationally and in lessening the usual degree of partisanship to work on shared values.

Certainly, the health plan, in the whole nature of discussions with the provinces and in fact the final result, was proof positive that people of goodwill representing all Canadians can search out for a consensus on a major issue such as health care without pointing fingers as to why we came to the state that we did, and proof positive that solutions and resolutions can be found.

In the throne speech, and I think crafted through it, is this notion that there are challenges out there for us to look at other issues and approach them in the same manner.

I think it is also important that we as Canadians recognize the changing diversity of our communities. We live in the global village, where we must find expressions that represent public opinion accurately and truthfully. Again, the throne speech talks about the challenge for us, not only to try to find resolutions to international conflict and play a major role but also to use that same approach here in Canada, recognizing that our policies have to mirror the expectations and aspirations of Canadians not only at home but abroad.

The throne speech also talks very seriously about defending the charter, the charter as the manifestation not only of the rights of minorities within our communities but also of the aspirations of all those who come to these shores, and about that value that Canadian society in the changing milieu continues to be an inclusive and dynamic community. I think the throne speech is a very well crafted expression of that value.

The throne speech also is an outlining of the opportunities that exist in this marvellous country, the opportunities that exist through the full spectrum, be it from labour through to professionals, to the investment community and to the corporate community. Huge possibilities exist.

I see the throne speech not just as pillars supporting something that is nebulous or just layers in a cake that are layered upon; I see it as a statement of aspirations and possibilities, be it in investing through environmental technologies or be it in resolving international issues in playing our major role and in looking at the world and finding Canadian leadership possibilities.

No matter how we look at the throne speech in terms of either substance or what it declares it stands for, it is a document and a representation of a government that is searching for inclusiveness and for fellow travellers to participate in the world as it exists, in creating not only a better world but a greater country. It is inclusive with respect to reaching out in this minority government to both sides of the House and all parties. As such, this is a throne speech that deserves the support of the House.