Alan Tonks

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, among the various points that the hon. member has put forward, the response in my notes indicates that although current data does not establish any direct link between the presence of salmon culture sites and low pink salmon returns in British Columbia's Broughton archipelago, the issue is of concern to the department. That is part of the response that is too dismissive of the point raised by the hon. member.

I have been assured that actions are being taken and if those aquaculture initiatives, which are under scrutiny, are not bearing up to the conditions that have been established under the relevant legislation, actions should and will be taken against them.

I will endeavour to obtain the information that the member has requested in order to allay his concern that we are not being as serious as he is about this issue, as it reflects on the natural habitat on the west coast. I will endeavour to get that information.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address the issue that the hon. member for Davenport has raised, that is, the sustainable use and development of aquaculture and its relationship with and the manner in which it implicates the natural fish habitat. In this case, it is pink salmon that the hon. member has indicated is at risk, a fact that has been established by the diminution of the pink salmon fish stocks on the west coast.

While I cannot answer in depth with respect to whether it is aquaculture that has been implicated to the largest extent and the general style of aquaculture, I can provide the hon. member with some responses to the questions he has raised. I would invite the member to follow up additionally where the information that has been provided to me has not adequately addressed the questions he has raised.

I say that because the questions that the hon. member for Davenport has raised are very legitimate questions. Against the background of what is happening with respect to the cod stocks on the east coast, certainly these are issues that we have to take very seriously.

Over the last 10 years, Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, has put in place a number of initiatives to promote sustainable development of the aquaculture industry and minimize its potential impacts on the environment and on wild fish stocks. Since launching the program for sustainable aquaculture, the department has stepped up its efforts to reach this objective.

The program for sustainable aquaculture, announced in 2000, is an investment that will enable the aquaculture industry to grow and become one of the jewels of the Canadian economy while allowing the government to ensure that this growth is not achieved to the detriment of our aquatic ecosystems. Aquaculture is an increasingly important activity in Canada and in the rest of the world and offers numerous social and economic opportunities, but I stress that it must not and cannot be at the risk of the natural habitat.

Announced recently was the action plan for pink salmon. I would like to give the details. We have implemented a freshwater monitoring program, conducted in parallel with DFO's traditional pink Pacific salmon stock assessment program. A marine monitoring program has been established, aimed at assessing the frequency and severity of sea lice infection rates among young salmon in the Broughton Archipelago area and gathering data with respect to taking action based on that research.

A strategic management approach for aquaculture sites in particular has been worked out with the British Columbia government. This program is being monitored in detail. There is also a long term research plan leading to the establishment of the department's research priorities on approaches to sea lice management in that area.

These are just the basic components of the plan. It is my hope that the plan will result in alleviating the kinds of concerns the hon. member has raised.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the first question. As to the last question, I am not an authority on air rifles or ballistics associated with the ammunition, so I will leave that one.

When a crime is committed using a firearm, whether it is a domestic dispute, an accident or whatever it is, does it really matter whether it is a registered or a non-registered firearm?

Let me tell the House what is relevant. Society takes every step it can to make sure that the gun does not get into hands where there is a propensity or a probability for the gun to be used in the commission of a crime, be it a domestic dispute or anything else. The question should be addressing that. It does not matter. What does matter is the opportunity for law enforcement officers to make a judgment that the gun should not get into that particular situation or those hands where there is the probability or propensity that it could be used in a tragic accident. The gun registry will help to make sure that does not happen.

The Alliance should be supporting that 100%.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I have tried to indicate, Canadians are voting with their feet. They are supporting this program in actual fact. It is not for the government side to tell Canadians what is in their best interest. Canadians have told the government what they want to see happen with respect to gun control. They want to see how the culture will be made more positive, more protective and more accountable.

However, the member is quite right. Canadians want to see gun control in its totality done in a sensible, accountable and cost efficient manner. The issue that is before the House, the subject matter of Bill C-10A, is the administration of the program, not the philosophy. That decision has already been made, not just by the government but has been adjudicated on by the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore let us get on with it.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to talk about the important changes that are taking place to streamline the firearms program and make it more efficient. Bill C-10A is really all about improving the program and increasing program efficiency.

There has been an attempt to resurrect the whole firearms control act and challenge it. That really is not what is before us today. What is before us today is the streamlining and efficiency of the program, and Canadians are concerned about that. I emphasize that is what is before us because the province of Alberta, when it challenged the right of the government to bring in the legislation, challenged the government on the basis of whether it contributed to public safety. The Supreme Court ruled that registration and licensing were two sides to the same coin when we talk about public safety.

Let us talk about what the bill addresses and that is the matter of streamlining and making the program more efficient.

With that in mind, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to remind Canadians about some of the positive steps the Government of Canada is already taking to improve this important legislation and this program.

The firearms program enhances public safety by controlling access to firearms and ammunition, by deterring their misuse, and controlling specific kinds of firearms. In other words, it addresses the whole culture that Canadians have with respect to firearms and a respect for them.

The program approaches gun safety as a practical manner by registering firearms and licensing their owners. Mandatory safety training helps reduce accidents and reinforces the principles of safe storage. Again, that contributes to that attitude of that culture with respect to firearms.

Since December 1, 1998, the government has issued firearm licences to over 1.9 million individuals. In addition, we have over six million firearms registered and now in the database.

Throughout the implementation process there have been many challenges. Many people waited until after the Supreme Court decision in June 2000 before applying for licences. I have already indicated that decision made it quite clear, that registration and licensing were two sides of the same coin in terms of public safety.

Changes in technology we recognize have contributed to rising costs as have delays in the adoption of Bill C-10A. We cannot ignore this. The government calls upon both sides of the House to expeditiously get on with this improvement of the mechanics of the implementation because it is the costs associated with it that are driving Canadians in the direction of a mistrust in their public institutions.

Nevertheless, the Canadian public has a tangible asset that includes a system of checks and balances, a spousal concern outlet and a database which is already proving its worth and making it very important to frontline officers.

A key date for the firearms program was December 31, 2002. That was the deadline for registration of firearms. On December 27 of last year special measures were announced for firearm owners. These special measures included a grace period for licensed owners who had mailed in their applications but not yet received their certificates in the mail. The grace period was also extended to people who were trying to register their firearms at the last minute but were unable to because of higher than normal call volumes and Internet traffic. These individuals were protected from prosecution provided they submitted a statement of intent to register their firearms before January 1, 2003, and many availed themselves of that in good faith.

While not an extension to the registration deadline, these special measures allowed people more time, in light of increasing demands on the call centre as well as the online application.

Over 70,000 individuals responded and sent in a statement of intent and each individual was been contacted and either provided with a registration form or provided with a link to the online application which was reinstated earlier this year. Canadians are supporting the program. They are doing it by the tens of thousands.

Now we are approaching the end of the grace period for registration and again, for people to avoid finding themselves in the same situation as before the deadline, we are urging people to complete their applications as soon as possible.

Canadians are committed to the principles of the Firearms Act. That is obvious. Public opinion poll after poll demonstrates this deep commitment. Despite the overheated rhetoric from those against gun control, opposition to the Canadian firearms program is neither as broad nor as unanimous as some would have Canadians believe.

The firearms program keeps guns out of the hands of those who may be a danger to themselves or others, enhances safe storage, transport and use, and prevents illegal guns from entering our country, or at least are steps in that direction.

Hon. members may remember that not too long ago a national poll found that the supporters of every political party represented in the House of Commons supported the firearms program.

During the past several months, the government has announced several key initiatives to improve the program and provide better client service across the country.

On February 21 the Minister of Justice, joined by the Solicitor General, tabled an action plan for changes to the firearms program. At that time the Minister of Justice stated:

The plan will streamline management, improve service to legitimate users of firearms, seek stakeholder, parliamentarian, and public input, and strengthen accountability and transparency to Parliament and Canadians.

The action plan contains many key areas that will help strengthen the program and make it more transparent. I am pleased to report that the government has made significant progress in the implementation of that action plan.

On April 14 the Canadian Firearms Centre was transferred from the Department of Justice to the Department of the Solicitor General. This is a natural fit to the Solicitor General portfolio, which is focused on enhancing public safety and ensuring national security.

The national weapons enforcement team also has been transferred. It is now a part of National Police Services which is administered by the RCMP. As members may recall, the national weapons enforcement team has been a key player, a key part, in several high profile cases over the past several months.

The action plan also states the government's intention to consolidate the headquarters function to the firearms program in Ottawa. This has already occurred following the appointment of a new CEO who is now accountable to the Solicitor General for the firearms program.

The government has also been committed to improving the total service to the public. I would like to take the opportunity to remind everyone on both sides of the House that firearms owners can access information and assistance through both a 1-800 service and the CFC website.

The CFC call centre is operational 16 hours a day. On average, the call centre receives 4,000 calls per day on a variety of issues. A recently introduced service allows firearms owner to order a registration form using the keypad of their telephones.

Online registration, which was reintroduced earlier this year, is available 24 hours a day free of charge. Online registration is not only beneficial to clients, it is cost efficient and the processing times are greatly reduced. Canadians by the thousands are availing themselves of the further information that they require. Is this not an indicator that they are interested in the role that they can play in contributing to public safety in Canada?

One of the commitments the program has made is to process every accurate and complete registration application in 30 days. This is only one of many new service standards that we will hear about over the next few weeks.

The government is also establishing a program advisory committee of experienced individuals drawn primarily from the private and non-government sectors to provide ongoing advice on program improvement, quality of service and cost effectiveness.

If the issues with respect to public safety are based in the community, then community based responses with advisory committees of this type are the way the government should be proceedings and is proceeding.

The government also proposed legislative changes to the Firearms Act that are designed to improve the efficiency of the program. Bill C-10A is an essential part of that action plan in establishing a more client friendly and efficient system.

One of these measures is the authority to stagger firearms licence renewals which is intended to help avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles. Evening out the workload in such a manner will guarantee and result in more efficient processing, better client service and significant cost savings.

Streamlining the transfer process for non-restricted firearms allows provincial chief firearms officers in the provinces to focus their efforts and resources on other public safety functions. It improves client services without compromising public safety.

As well, the legislation allows for the increased use of Internet and other automated channels for not only the application process but the issuance of documents as well, which is a further service in terms of outreach to those who have firearms, to allow them to expedite their issuance.

Additional changes contained in Bill C-10A would allow foreign visitors to obtain a pre-approved declaration that will help outfitters to better prepare their clients prior to their entry into Canada.

The amendments have also grandfathered additional handguns that were prohibited in 1995. This change is a direct result of consultations with stakeholders and other program partners.

The Canadian firearms program will present an annual report to Parliament that will provide a full account of the program and complement existing government reports to Parliament.

While additional regulations would be required in some cases, these amendments are yet another example of how the firearms program is evolving and meeting the expectations of the Canadian public.

Canadians want strong and sensible gun laws. They have spoken by the tens of thousands on the issue. They also want a commitment from us that we will administer this program in the most efficient manner possible, and that is the subject matter of the bill. It is inspired by the support of Canadians. I am confident we can overcome any challenge and ensure that Canada has an effective and sensible gun control program, which is what Canadians want.

Passage of Bill C-10A is necessary to ensure that will happen. It is in the interest of providing the best possible service to Canadians and, most important, it will contribute to the culture of community safety that Canadians want as a legacy for themselves and for future generations.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the term repatriation of a Canadian citizen in fact is a contradiction in terms. I do not know how Canadian citizens can be repatriated in the sense that they are always Canadian citizens. The transfer in Bill C-33 suggests that their rights in a sense, under the spirit of the bill, can be brought back to Canada and implemented within such things as the charter, which has been mentioned by the hon. member.

With respect to the charter, and I certainly would bow to others who have more experience in the application and relevance of the charter in such circumstances, and the matter of whether the charter would be applicable to landed immigrants and onto spouses and so on, my understanding is that the charter applies in effect to even those who are not Canadian citizens, who are offshore. We recently had the seizing of Chinese illegals who had argued that the charter in some respects should apply to them, and with some merit. Our charter is much more universal and holistic in terms of its application.

To answer the member, my understanding would be that if the charter applies in such fashion, then it would be my opinion that the broader application of the charter would be applied such that it would in fact protect and address the issues that may be affected, as they relate to spouses and so on.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding also is that while initially the consent must be given and must be given by the party to which the application is made, that, yes, during the process, the consent can be denied.

I would suggest it is really the application of due process and natural justice in that the person who has been convicted in a foreign country never has lost that right for due process in the eyes of Canada and under the terms and conditions of Bill C-33.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would have to bow to the member's considerable experience in this area.

With respect to the first point relating to the definition of a foreign offender and that under the transfer there may be still a process in place under appeal, the member has alluded to the fact, and it should be self-evident, that the inability to have resources to defend under appeal is in fact a denial of natural justice.

I find it difficult to respond other than to say under the transfer and negotiation of the transfer that the appeals to some extent have to be over. It is at that point which I think the intent of the bill is to click in. As has been said before by members who are more knowledgeable about the bill than I, these are the kinds of issues that will have to be clarified during the next process.

With respect to the conflict with Islamic law or law that is of a different nature in other countries and how does one cross over, we often think that the separation of church and state in our own democratic evolution is something that all countries have experienced. We have only globally very quickly been made aware that fundamentalism as it relates to crossovers between judicial systems and government systems is not as clear as it is in our own tradition.

These are the kinds of issues on a humanitarian basis that we are attempting to universalize. The negotiation behind the transfer is to attempt to accommodate those kinds of issues.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House in support of the government's Bill C-33, the international transfer of offenders act. The primary objective of the bill is to modernize the Transfer of Offenders Act which was proclaimed in 1978. Everyone would agree that in this global environment the world has certainly changed since then and the time has now come to address the substantive issues which have developed during this period. Many of those developments have been alluded to by members on the opposite side.

The provisions introduced by the bill would ensure that Canada has a modern and comprehensive framework for negotiating the transfer of offenders which reflects international standards and allows for mutual cooperation in criminal justice.

In basic terms, the Transfer of Offenders Act provides for the implementation of treaties with other countries for the international transfer of offenders. These treaties allow Canadians convicted abroad to serve their sentences in Canada, and allows foreign nationals to return to their home countries for the same purpose.

One might well ask, as many members have, why these types of transfer agreements are required at all. After all, some might argue that time served in a foreign jail, far from friends and family and under harsh conditions, might serve as a deterrent to Canadians who might be contemplating crime abroad. Of what benefit is it to allow Canadians who have run afoul of the law in some foreign jurisdiction to return to Canada to serve the remainder of their sentence here?

The answer to this question lies in the humanitarian and public safety objectives of the Transfer of Offenders Act, objectives that will be retained and strengthened under Bill C-33. The links between humanitarian and public safety objectives are as important as they are clear. Canadian correctional policy recognizes that the vast majority of offenders will one day be released back into their respective communities. We have learned that the best way to ensure public safety is to prepare offenders for their ultimate release at the end of their incarceration. At the core of this process is the humane treatment of offenders.

We all recognize that Canadians sentenced abroad are often incarcerated under terribly harsh conditions without access to satisfactory environments that would give them a positive outlook to that period when they would be released back into society. These considerations affect not only Canadians sentenced abroad, but also their families and friends. Returning these offenders to Canada on humanitarian considerations also opens the door to improved opportunities for their rehabilitation and for protecting public safety. I want to reiterate that particular point.

The spirit behind the changes in Bill C-33 are in fact to increase public safety by rehabilitating those who have been incarcerated, and not accelerating their criminal tendencies. By that I mean also providing offenders access to rehabilitation opportunities that might otherwise not be available in a foreign jail. This includes being in close proximity to a supportive family and friendly environment as well as to prospective employers who are able to provide support during and following release. It also includes providing access to programs that have demonstrated to be effective in addressing the underlying causes of criminal behaviour.

Public safety is ensured by the requirement that all offenders transferred to Canada will be subject to supervision in the community following release. This would not be true, for example, if these same offenders were released directly from prison in a foreign jurisdiction. If that were the case, these offenders would simply and most probably be deported to Canada without any controls whatsoever and without the benefits of any rehabilitation programs. Would this be in the interests of Canadian society? I think not.

Let us make no mistake. The provisions of Bill C-33 do not mean that transferred offenders can somehow escape justice. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The treaties and the act ensure that the receiving state continues to enforce the sentence imposed by the sentencing state.

As I noted at the outset, the Transfer of Offenders Act came into effect in 1978, and until now, amendments have primarily been of a technical nature.

Part of providing Canadians with good governance requires that government laws and policies be reviewed and updated, as required, to reflect changing conditions. This holds true for the Transfer of Offenders Act.

Indeed, the government has undertaken extensive consideration and consultation with 91 private sector and government agencies for the purpose of determining what, if any, amendments were required. I am pleased to say that there was strong support for these provisions of the Transfer of Offenders Act.

The results of our consultation also pointed to the need for amendments in three broad categories. The proposals put forward in Bill C-33 fall into one of the following categories: those that would reflect traditional treaty principles; those that would close identified gaps in the Transfer of Offenders Act; and finally, those that would introduce efficiencies to the current practices.

Very briefly I would like to touch on the key points introduced by the reforms.

The purpose of the act and the principles that guide it are clearly stated. This helps to ensure consistency with other components of Canadian law, particularly the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The stated purpose of the new international transfer of offenders act is to contribute to the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community by enabling offenders to serve their sentences in the country of which they are citizens or nationals.

Traditional international treaty obligations and principles considered to be legally essential are included. These include concepts such as the non-aggravation of the sentence by the receiving state, to which I have alluded earlier. It also includes principles that would give the offender access to processes consistent with natural justice and due process. A legally sound act is essential to ensure that the courts do not strike down the transfer process and that transferred offenders are not released into the community without appropriate controls.

Eligibility criteria to allow for the transfer of a broader range of Canadians who are currently not eligible are included in Bill C-33. As has been mentioned, young persons under probation, children and mentally disordered persons will become eligible for transfer under the provisions in this bill. This is fully consistent with the humanitarian objectives of the proposed legislation.

Clarification is included on the decision making provisions where provincial consent is required for the transfer of offenders on probation, provincial parole, provincial temporary absence and for those who, under a conditional sentence, are in an intermittent sentence.

Reforms are included to ensure consistent and equitable sentence calculation provisions for transferred offenders and to ensure the equitable treatment of transferred offenders when a pardon is granted or a conviction or sentence is set aside or modified.

Finally, provisions are added to allow negotiation of transfers on a case by case and ad hoc basis between Canada and states with which Canada has no treaty or jurisdictions, or territories that are not yet recognized as a state, or non-state entities such as Hong Kong or Macao. This last point is particularly significant in light of ongoing world developments.

These are some of the main elements of Bill C-33 that would be introduced.

Most states have recognized the importance of working together to prevent and respond to criminal conduct. Although this objective might seem to conflict with some aspects of the longstanding principle of territoriality, that is to say of not enforcing foreign laws, such cooperation actually protects the sovereignty of states by preventing offenders from escaping justice. In its absence, crime could be encouraged rather than suppressed.

The success of Canada's transfer of offenders scheme hinges on international cooperation. Bill C-33 would provide Canada with the legislative flexibility to cooperate with a broader range of countries and entities in matters of criminal justice.

As I have said before, this is the key to public protection. Enforcement of a foreign sentence in Canada ensures that offenders will be safely and gradually reintegrated into society by correctional authorities.

To sum up, the proposals introduced by Bill C-33 build on a very successful component of Canada's corrections policy, one that embraces fair and effective treatment of all offenders, including those sentenced abroad. The proposed reforms would demonstrate a strong commitment to humanitarian and public safety objectives. Moreover, the proposals demonstrate a continuing receptivity and responsiveness to changing international developments and a willingness to cooperate multilaterally with existing and new partners.

For these reasons, I ask members of the House for their support of Bill C-33.

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to make an observation. There is absolutely no question that the relationship between Taiwan and Canada has had an historical significance over the last three or four decades. What the Taiwanese have contributed to Canada is outstanding.

However, it is somewhat more than a diplomatic nicety that we have a relationship with the People's Republic of China. My first question to the member is, does the member not find it encouraging that as recently as last week the People's Republic of China granted the WHO the opportunity to go into Taiwan and observe with respect to the implications vis-à-vis SARS? On the basis of that, does the member not think that in view of the diplomatic relationship Canada has with the People's Republic of China his motion would be more credible, if we will, if it were to be worded in such a fashion that it would request the foreign affairs ministry to use all of its capabilities in diplomatic terms to enjoin the People's Republic of China to grant observer status to Taiwan?