Alex Atamanenko

[BAN ON SHARK FIN IMPORTATION ACT, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me today to offer support for Bill C-380, an act to amend the Fish Inspection Act and the Fisheries Act, which would prohibit the importation of shark fins not attached to the rest of the shark and enshrine in legislation Canada's prohibition on finning.

I would like to thank and applaud my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam for his courage in raising this important issue.

As we all know, an illegal trade in animal body parts exists in the world, such as ivory and rhino horns from Africa, tiger parts from Siberia and bear parts from North America. I am not a hunter but I understand full well the practice of killing animals for food when done in a responsible way to feed people. One might say that shooting a deer in the wild could be considered more humane than putting animals through a slaughterhouse. However, being a meat eater, as most of us are, I accept all of these practices.

On the other hand, killing animals for trophies or body parts is totally reprehensible. That is why I do not support the hunting of grizzlies in my province or anywhere else for that matter.

I have seen the documentary Sharkwater and have watched how sharks are caught, their fins are cut off and they are thrown back into the water. This practice is repulsive, immoral and is largely driven by an underground market controlled by organized crime that exploits threatened and endangered species to maximize profits.

Nearly 100 million sharks are killed every year, mainly for their fins. Trade is under-regulated, and it is almost impossible to ensure that imported fins have not been removed illegally or are not from threatened species.

Shark populations are slow to reproduce and cannot support the current overfishing. Sharks are essential to the health of marine ecosystems, and the decline in their population threatens to profoundly disrupt these ecosystems. In 2009, the International Union for Conservation of Nature reported that one-third of shark species were threatened with extinction because of this trade.

In a few decades, shark populations in certain areas have dropped by more than 95%, and they continue to decline. According to some experts, up to 20 shark species could disappear by 2017. In addition, it is impossible to know whether imported fins come from sustainable and respectful fishing.

Shark fin soup currently sells for between $8 and $100 a bowl in restaurants. However, in Canada as abroad, more and more people are refusing to serve or eat this kind of soup, and many Chinese restaurants have voluntarily taken this soup off their menu, including Floata in Vancouver, one of the largest Chinese restaurants in Canada.

Some municipalities in Canada have also passed, or will soon pass, bylaws prohibiting the sale of shark fins and related products. The communities in British Columbia that fall into this group are Coquitlam, Abbotsford, Duncan, Langley, the Township of Langley, Maple Ridge, Nanaimo, New Westminster, North Vancouver, Port Moody and White Rock. I congratulate the municipal councils for having the courage to pass these bylaws.

The Chinese government has required that shark fin soup no longer be served at state banquets. A number of prestigious hotels have removed this type of soup from their menu. Many countries, including the Bahamas, Ecuador and Fiji, territories like French Polynesia, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as the American states of California, Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon and Washington have issued similar bans.

Some people say that Bill C-380 will have an impact on international trade. Based on our research, that is not the case.

We studied the possible consequences of an import ban in relation to the WTO obligations, and we feel that this bill complies with Canada's international trade obligations. Furthermore, my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam is open to amendments at committee stage.

We need to get the bill to committee to address any concerns anyone has.

There are a number of myths about Canada's current shark fin import laws. Some elected members have suggested that Bill C-380 is unnecessary because Canada already has enough laws and that Canada bans the trade of shark products from species protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) or the Species at Risk Act.

According to the Canadian branch of Humane Society International, this is false. Both CITES and SARA only protect three species of shark: basking sharks, whale sharks and great white sharks. In other words, out of 141 threatened or near-threatened shark species only 3 are protected by Canadian federal laws.

Another myth we hear is that Canada bans or restricts the trade, possession or sale of shark products that present human health or safety concerns. This is also false. Shark fins, which continue to be legally imported into Canada contain high concentrations of a potent neurotoxin, BMAA, which scientists have linked to neurodegenerative diseases in humans such as Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease. This is not unlike, for example, the link between phenylbutazone in horsemeat and aplastic anemia in children.

The third myth states that working through regional fisheries management organizations to ensure strong global management and enforcement practices is the most effective way to prevent unsustainable shark fishing practices such as finning. This is also false. As long as there is a demand for shark fins, there will be local industry pressure on governments not to prohibit the practice. This demand will also perpetuate the poaching of sharks in the waters of countries that already prohibit finning.

Canada has already been identified, for example, by CSIS as a destination country for poached shark fins from Australia, even though some Australian states have some of the world's strongest shark finning laws. Eliminating the demand removes incentive for fishermen to continue finning and poaching sharks.

We have a chance in the House to do something right together, to take a major step and end this disgusting practice. At a bare minimum, I strongly urge my colleagues who are here, and others who will be here later on, to support getting Bill C-380 to committee where there can be a detailed study with feedback from witnesses, as is the case in a democratic process.

It does not hurt, in any of these crucial issues, to have some more insurance. If we think we have good laws, let us beef them up and provide more insurance to toughen them up. We can always ease back on a law after we have toughened it up, but it is really hard to try to enforce something when we do not have the legislative background to do it.

For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support Bill C-380. I thank my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam for having taken the initiative to bring this forward.

[Petitions, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions to present.

The first petition has over 500 names from Ontario, B.C. and Alberta. The petitioners point out that horses are ordinarily kept and treated as sport and companion animals. They are not raised as food production. They are commonly administered drugs that are strictly prohibited from being used in the food chain.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and Parliament to bring forth and adopt into legislation my bill, Bill C-322, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act.

The second petition is from folks from B.C. and Ontario with over 300 signatures.

The petitioners are calling for stronger animal cruelty legislation. Canadians are tired of hearing about animals that are being abused, while their abusers walk free. As well, the link between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans has been well documented.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to work with the provinces to ensure federal and provincial laws are constructed and enforced to ensure that those responsible for abusing, neglecting, torturing, or otherwise harming animals are held appropriately accountable.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada decison in R. V. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

There are clearly differences between rural and urban areas. All of those differences need to be taken into account when a bill is being introduced. I personally represent a rural area, as do many other members. This difference should always be considered, as should the needs of the people living in rural regions.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada decison in R. V. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, of course we are rushing to do this.

Earlier in her speech on the bill, my colleague from Gatineau likened this to students preparing for a final exam at the last minute and then getting the results. This is what has happened here.

The point is what has happened has happened. We should have had more time. However, we are here and will support the bill because it certainly is an improvement on what we saw in Bill C-30 that had been introduced.

The member's observation is very important.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada decison in R. V. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saint-Lambert.

The way I understand this bill, it is a reaction to Bill C-30, which was introduced previously, and although it was thought that it would solve problems related to wiretaps, it did not, and proved to be a mistake. Therefore, we now have another bill, which tends to have a more balanced approach to this whole issue, as many of my colleagues have said.

I know we have heard it before, but I will reiterate that what this bill would basically do is amend the Criminal Code to provide a response to the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Tse on safeguards related to the authorization to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4. In other words, it would provide safeguards for when this kind of action takes place.

It would require the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Attorney General of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4. I am not a lawyer, but I am a Canadian citizen, so I understand that when this type of thing happens, it is important for people to know. If somebody is wiretapping my phone, then I should certainly know it has happened, whether it is justifiable or not. At least I would know and could react appropriately. That is a good point in this bill.

It would also provide that a person who has been the object of such an interception be notified of the interception within a specified period.

It would narrow the class of individuals who can make such an interception, which obviously makes sense, and would limit those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

In my analysis of this bill, it is very sound. This legislation is an updated version of the wiretapping provisions that the Supreme Court has deemed to be unconstitutional. It would establish new parameters for the protection of privacy, and my party believes this legislation complies with those standards.

In the R. v. Tse case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that authorization of the emergency power to intercept without authorization by the court in situations of imminent harm could be justified under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court held that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code, enacted in 1993, was unconstitutional because it did not include any accountability measures, and it gave Parliament until April 13, 2013, to amend the provision to make it constitutional. It seems we are sort of just under the wire, but it looks as if we will make it, as it is not yet April 13.

I would like to refer to some of the comments that my colleague from Gatineau made when she spoke on the bill a while ago in the House. She mentioned that the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the R. v. Tse case and urged colleagues in the House to read the decision before voting on Bill C-55. She said there is no real need to read all 50 pages of the decision, but at least the summary, because it gives a good explanation of the problem arising from the section on invasion of privacy. She said that, believe it or not, that is what it is called. In the Criminal Code the section concerns invasion of privacy.

Just as an aside, as a concerned citizen, I say it is important that if there is an invasion of privacy, there is justification for it and the person whose privacy is invaded knows exactly what is going on. Once again, this bill tackles that concern.

My colleague from Gatineau went on to say that the section on invasion of privacy pertains to very specific cases that must be considered within the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She said the authorities must ensure that the circumstances in question actually constitute an invasion of privacy.

We live in a democratic society, not a totalitarian state. There has to be justification when there is an invasion of privacy.

She went on to say that most of the section provided some checks and required the Crown and the police to obtain certain authorizations, and that section 184.4 had proven to be problematic in this regard because it was rather unclear about wiretapping and that unless an indictment were filed against the people in question, they would never know they were being wiretapped. The way I understand it, this would be meant to fix that loophole in the Criminal Code.

What does section 184.4 of the Criminal Code address? It states:

A peace officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication where

(a) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision of this Part;

(b) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that such an interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and

(c) either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

The details of R. vs. Tse are as follows:

This appeal [concerned] the constitutionality of the emergency wiretap provision, s. 184.4 of the Criminal Code. In this case, the police used s. 184.4 to carry out unauthorized warrantless interceptions of private communications when the daughter of an alleged kidnapping victim began receiving calls from her father stating that he was being held for ransom. Approximately 24 hours later, the police obtained a judicial authorization for continued interceptions, pursuant to s. 186 of the Code. The trial judge found that s. 184.4 contravened the right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure under s. 8 of the Charter and that it was not a reasonable limit under s. 1. The Crown has appealed the declaration of unconstitutionality directly to [the Supreme Court].

The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

After debating this matter in the House, we sent the bill to committee. A number of witnesses spoke about the bill at a meeting held on March 6 of this year.

I would like to share what Michael Spratt, of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, had to say:

...the CLA is in favour of this legislation. The CLA generally supports legislation that is modest, fair, and constitutional, and Bill C-55 does an admirable job of incorporating the comments of the Supreme Court of Canada from the case of R. v. Tse. However, there are some areas that the committee may wish to examine and may wish to have some further reflection upon.

He added that:

Bill C-55 is a positive step forward in that it seeks to provide a better balance between the protection of the public and the protection of the public's privacy.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Red Deer, for tabling this piece of legislation. It is identical to Bill C-576, which he tabled in the 40th Parliament and at that time was supported unanimously at second reading. I will beg his forgiveness if I repeat a lot of the information that was already said, but when we are supporting a good bill, there is nothing wrong with repeating the good points about it.

It is my understanding that the bill is a response to a very tragic incident in Red Deer, where a young girl was sexually assaulted by a man disguised as a police officer. Our society should not have to tolerate this kind of abuse of trust. We need to ensure that our citizens can turn to police officers and other public officials when in need and feel safe in doing so. We see in other countries where criminals disguise themselves as police officers in order to commit crimes, many of them very violent crimes against unsuspecting citizens. We cannot allow this to take place in our country.

Bill C-444 amends section 130 of the Criminal Code to establish that personating a police officer or a public officer for the purpose of committing another offence must be considered by a court to be an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

This is not a very common offence, but the Criminal Code must be amended all the same. We recognize that this offence is not only an attack on its victims, but it also represents an abuse of the institutions in our society that Canadians must be able to trust. Considering false representation as an aggravating factor instead of proposing a minimum sentence allows us to support this bill, because it respects the victim and judicial independence, and punishes the offender appropriately.

We believe that justice for victims is important and we are pleased to have been able to work with the government on this bill. It is not often that we are able to work with the government so closely, and so I am pleased that we were able to do so on this.

As I already said, this bill comes as a result of an incident that happened in Red Deer when a poor young woman was sexually assaulted by a man who had disguised himself as a police officer and had put fake flashing lights on his car. The assailant is now in prison after being sentenced to 18 years, including an additional six months for impersonating a law enforcement officer. My colleague, the hon. member for Red Deer, described this as the equivalent of committing a crime with a weapon, because the victim is forced to submit to a false authority who is committing a violent act.

This bill says nothing about a minimum sentence. Allowing judges discretionary power is very important.

We will therefore support this bill at all stages, as we planned to do for its predecessor in the previous Parliament. We on this side of the House recognize that this type of crime is not only a horrible attack on the victim, but also an usurpation of the power of the forces of law and order, which is very serious. By pretending to represent institutions that Canadians trust and obey, criminals are attacking society as a whole.

This bill will formally codify this offence and achieve justice for those who have been victims of such crimes.

New Democrats are satisfied with this bill, which will fill a void in the Criminal Code. This bill will ensure justice for victims, respect for judicial independence and suitable punishment for offenders.

We agree with my colleague and his party on this bill. It models a logical and balanced approach to justice, and we are happy to support it. I think this is an excellent example for democracy.

Once again, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Red Deer for his hard work and for introducing this bill again.

[Canada Post Corporation, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are at it again. Post offices around the country have been closed. Now we have learned there are even more cutbacks on the way. They are talking about reducing the number of home deliveries per week and closing more post offices. These types of closures hit people in rural and remote areas even harder because they are farther away from service centres of all types. People rely upon our postal services to get their pay and their benefits.

Why are the Conservatives continuing with their reckless Canada Post cuts?

[Employment Insurance, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is probably time for the minister to get out of her glass bubble and actually talk to people affected by these cuts.

The fruit industry in British Columbia depends on seasonal workers, but under the new EI rules seasonal workers will be forced to accept any work that comes along. With these demands, there will be a dramatic decrease in the number of workers available to help with the harvest. Fruit growers will be left scrambling with harvest and delivery.

When is the government going to reverse these changes, which negatively affect seasonal workers?

[Wireless Smart Meters, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Cliff Paluck and the West Kootenay Concerned Citizens group for hosting sessions on smart meters and wireless technology in Castlegar, Trail and Slocan Park. The guest speaker, Jerry Flynn, a retired naval officer, spent most of his military career working in signals intelligence, electronic and radio warfare.

Fortis, B.C. has made an application with the B.C. Utilities Commission to introduce wireless smart meters in our area. According to Flynn, the ambient level of electromagnetic resonance in our society is already extremely toxic and wireless smart meters will dramatically increase this danger. Flynn noted that Canada's Safety Code 6 guidelines are based solely on industry studies, which consider only thermal effects but ignore the known and dangerous effects of non-thermal microwave radiation on biological systems.

In keeping with the precautionary principle being urged by numerous independent scientists around the world, we should only consider installing wired meter technology in all our homes, as it is risk-free.

Thanks again to Cliff and Jerry for increasing our awareness.

[Petitions, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions.

The first has over 2,000 signatures, primarily British Columbians from Vancouver, Revelstoke and Prince George, calling for stronger animal cruelty legislation. They call upon the House of Commons to work with the provinces to ensure federal and provincial laws are constructed and enforced, which will ensure that those responsible for abusing, neglecting, torturing or otherwise harming animals are held appropriately accountable.

The second petition has over 400 names in support of my bill, Bill C-322, which calls upon the government to enact laws to prohibit the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption, as well as horse meat products for human consumption.