Dennis Bevington

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's approach and the government's approach to the conditions that will exist in the Arctic is very conservative. Quite clearly, the extent of the ice decomposition in the Arctic has moved along much faster than anyone predicted over the last number of years. The opportunity for the ice to completely leave the Arctic is now considered within the next decade.

We have a situation where things are moving very rapidly. The extent of a clear ocean now extends, in many cases, past the 200 mile limit, about which my colleague talked. Therefore, we are already in a position where we can start to assess the relative fish stocks in the area. It is important to move forward with this. There is no reason to slow down the examination of this issue. It requires attention.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the government in a discussion about the need for an international treaty on Arctic fisheries.

This summer, the loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean reached its greatest extent on record, shrinking to less than 3.5 million square kilometres, which is less than half the area typically occupied four decades ago. Approximately 25% of the ice mass is intact in that area.

Loss of permanent sea ice has opened up as much as 40% of this pristine region, making commercial fisheries viable for the first time in human history.

This area is beyond the 200-mile exclusive economic zones of the eight Arctic nations, so it is international water and is not covered by a fisheries management regime.

In April of this year, more than 2,000 scientists from 67 countries urged Arctic leaders to develop an international fisheries agreement that would protect the waters of the central Arctic Ocean. The 2,000 scientists recommended that Arctic Council members take the lead in developing a precautionary international fisheries management agreement; start with a catch level of zero until sufficient scientific research can assess the impact of fisheries on the central Arctic ecosystem; and set up a robust management, monitoring and enforcement system before fishing begins.

With the ocean warming and the sea ice melting, Pacific sockeye salmon, Atlantic cod, pollock and other commercially attractive species may well move northward.

Within 200 nautical miles of shore, jurisdiction to regulate fishing falls exclusively to the coastal state. However, stocks that live in the high seas beyond this zone or that move between the high seas and this zone are vulnerable to over-exploitation. The lack of regulation makes the now ice-free Arctic Ocean a tempting target for high-seas trawler fleets from non-Arctic nations.

The 1995 Straddling Stocks Agreement enables coastal states to create a regional fisheries organization to manage straddling and highly migratory stocks in the areas beyond 200 nautical miles from shore by setting quotas and through other means. However, any such organization must be open to states outside the region. Any state wanting to fish within the region must join the organization. By doing so, it is able to participate fully.

We have a situation in the Arctic. The Arctic is changing rapidly. There is great concern about what is going to happen with the fisheries there, obviously.

When we speak to the importance of the work on this that is going ahead right now, we can look to the Arctic Council. Canada is taking over the chair of the Arctic Council this spring. There is an opportunity, perhaps, not to fully engage the nations in the opportunity to put forward agreements and treaties but, with a two-year timeframe for the chairmanship, to initiate that procedure.

It is going to take the government making plans, very early in the process, to accomplish anything within that two-year timeframe. That is why it is important for the government to outline whether it is interested and ready to take that step. Negotiation of an Arctic fishery organization agreement would have to at least include the European Union. The Arctic Council can take the lead. Many other countries are going to be involved.

This summer , the Chinese icebreaker, the Snow Dragon, took a direct route over the North Pole. It took 20 days to go from Iceland to the Asian coast. That is the reality of the situation we are facing in the Arctic.

[The Environment, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will not have to rewrite history on this question because it is about navigation.

On Monday, the premier of the Northwest Territories stated that his government was not consulted before the Minister of Transport removed the protections from most of the waterways in the north. If the minister had been consulted, he would have been told that removing the protection from Hay River would also have meant removing protection from the largest port facility in Canada's north.

Since the minister could not be bothered to consult with other Canadian governments, just who did he consult with before acting in such a ham-fisted manner?

[The Environment, October 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have excluded from protection many northern rivers which northerners rely on for navigation, such as the Nahanni River, the Liard River, most of the Yukon River, the Bear River and even the Slave River, which drains 80% of the water leaving Alberta and has been used for barging for more than 100 years. It is now excluded from protection. This could be opened up for a major power dam.

Is it the government's intent to remove any controls and development on the Slave and these other rivers?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

That does not mean creating a disturbance. We have all created a disturbance at one point or other in our lives.

Someone is creating a disturbance here in the House of Commons. I am not going to ask him for his criminal record check. I am willing to accept sometimes that people do not always act in the best possible way.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things that go on there. For instance, having military service in one's background is normally a plus on a resumé. It really represents time that someone has invested in the country, perhaps putting one's life at risk and having agreed to serve in a diligent fashion under the orders of others. That person has made a contribution. Now he or she ends up with a criminal record for a relatively minor offence. That goes on the resumé as well, in a real sense. It is there as part of that person's life record.

However, when that person wants to get an apartment, a nice place, and have a good life in a good way and a criminal record check is done of them, the person checking will find that criminal record for a very minor offence, even though the ex-military member had served their country well. They would not be allowed to stay there. Perhaps that might upset their partner. Perhaps that might end up with their being less comfortable in their own lives. Those things happen and are the realities of life for someone with a criminal record.

If someone goes to the border to go to the United States, will they be turned back for a minor offence? I get phone calls in the middle of the night from guys from my riding who have driven down to the Alberta-Montana border to go across with their kids to take them to a hockey tournament and they are turned back. Imagine what that does to that family. Because someone had a minor criminal record from 30 or 40 years ago, they get turned back when taking their children to a hockey tournament. That is the kind of thing that happens to someone with a criminal record.

I do not want to see Canadians have criminal records unless they have really done something wrong and really stepped well past the boundaries of civilized society.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear in my discourse that I agreed with the idea of summary trials. What we are concerned about here is the kind of sentence that is passed under those summary trials. That is why we want to see changes made, so that these types of summary trials have appropriate punishments attached to them and do not lead to many people ending up with criminal records in the country for relatively minor offences.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-15, a bill that would change the nature of the National Defence Act and, in some ways, improve the military's system of criminal justice.

This legislation has been a part of ongoing debate in Parliament over a number of years. We have some serious concerns with this legislation and will be opposing it at second reading. Committee stage has not been all that fruitful over the last year and a half of the majority Conservative government, but I suppose that if we did get some amendments that brought the legislation back to the state it was in the previous parliament, then we could get onside with that. Here we are debating this legislation in the House of Commons, recognizing that committees have not been doing their due diligence on many of the bills that have gone forward. The government has been using its majority in committees to block many useful amendments. That problem, we all recognize, has been changing our ability to provide good legislation for Canadians.

I want to talk about the summary trial system and the fact that a conviction of a service offence in a summary trial of a Canadian Forces member may result in a criminal record. I am concerned about the vast number of Canadians who may end up with a criminal record for offences that are relatively minor and the fact that we do this at a higher rate than many other civilized countries in the world.

We have a system that puts a criminal record on the backs of Canadians for a variety of offences, including in some cases for very minor and victimless offences that really do not warrant the kind of long-term impediment to a convicted person's lifestyle that a criminal conviction entails. That impediment includes getting a job, getting a place to live or travelling to other countries. Having a criminal record in Canada seriously impedes the progress of someone's life, and we here in Parliament should take it seriously. A conviction becomes part of a citizen's history and affects his or her life going forward.

Now we have summary trials in the military tradition. The NDP worked hard on the previous bill to get an amendment that would strike off a great number of the offences under the National Defence Act that can result in criminal records. In the previous bill the government was going to remove five of those offences but we managed to get that number up to 27. I am not familiar with precisely which five offences still remain in this legislation.

When I look at the offences under the National Defence Act, such as disobedience of a lawful command, for instance, should that carry forward in every instance in a summary trial? Remember that we are talking about a summary trial where there is no obligation on the part of those conducting the trial to provide legal counsel to the people standing in front of them. We are dealing with a hierarchical system where the complainant in the military tradition has the upper hand over the defendant.

Providing prompt but fair justice in respect to minor service offences contributes to the maintenance of military discipline and efficiency. However, given that our military personnel are under great stress and have to deal with being away from home for long periods of time under a very strict command and control structure, they are likely to offend in some way if, under the command system, they are identified as a problem. That is the nature of military service.

We have to think about what we are doing with or creating for these people when they come out of the military into the general population. That is very important. It is a very serious situation for them if, from a summary trial, they have a criminal record for some minor service infraction. I think this goes on quite often In Canada. We give people a criminal record for a variety of small offences in the military, which I do not think is appropriate to do there or in the general justice system. We need to reform all of our justice systems so that we not too easily burden people with a criminal record designation.

Under the National Defence Act we have offences such as abuse of subordinates, connivance at desertion, absence without leave, cruel or disgraceful conduct, insubordinate behaviour, quarrels and disturbances. These are all part of life. They are things that happen to one degree or another. How is something like a quarrel or disturbance designated? I hate to think that by quarrelling with the government here over the bill that I could be up on a summary offence by some trial in the House of Commons. However, that is what happens in the military.

We must maintain military discipline and there are reasons to have summary trials, but the sentencing that goes along with that is what we are talking about here. That is at question. Should minor offences have a long-lasting impact on a person's life? This is why the NDP is taking a strong position here, because we do not want to see this happen. We did have good results in the last Parliament in getting 27 of these offences removed, and I think that would make the bill more palatable.

It is not every day that we discuss the nature of military justice. This is our last shot at it. Once the bill has gone through the process, it may not come before Parliament for another decade. There may be many instances where people end up with criminal records for relatively minor offences over the next decade, if the bill passes during the course of this session.

We have important work to do here and want to see this done right. We want to ensure that the kinds of penalties given for offences in this regard are well thought out and are not punishing Canadians unduly for things that may occur under the conditions of military service.

[Business of Supply, October 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I know the concern we all have about food safety. I would like to reference back to see if the member could answer some questions about what has happened over the past number of years with the Brooks plant.

In the past, the Alberta government invested heavily in speeding up the processing in this plant. It increased the rate of production through grants to XL Foods.

Could the member tell me what the response was from the federal government and the CFIA to the effort that was made by the Alberta government to increase the production for that plant?

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague neglects to say that there is a cabinet directive to provide a strategic environmental assessment before any leases are handed out. As well, the process that he describes sounds great if it is being handled in a correct fashion by a company that can handle it. However, what we see now is a company that cannot financially handle this kind of investment in the Arctic and will undoubtedly pick other partners for it. If the company or the other partners are successful in finding a significant discovery in that area, the companies then have the right to that resource. That resource remains with them.

What we have is a situation where we do not have a clear future outlined in the handing out of this lease for such a low sum of money. I might add that a letter of credit is all that is required for the deposit that goes on these leases.