Derek Lee

[Fisheries Act, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate on this legislation.

The reason for the legislation being here was generated by members of the House and the Senate because of a disallowance report put together and tabled by the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations. The ministry has responded very quickly to produce legislation which would rectify a difficulty in the existing regulations, as pointed out by the standing joint committee. This is an alleged defect. The committee is pretty sure that it is correct in this, although I am prepared to allow some difference of opinion as this thing goes on.

I have served on that committee for some 15 years. The member for Scarborough Southwest has been there for some 16 years continuously. We are relatively clear on where we are coming from on the committee. The work of the committee over all those years, and prior to when I arrived, has always been non-partisan. The committee has effectively done its work, regrettably ending up in about a half a dozen disallowance reports over the 15 years. That is not too bad. All the other hundreds of disagreements with the government have been resolved by other means.

In this case, the committee felt that it had no choice but to proceed with the disallowance.

The government, having read the report, has done everything it could to comply with the disallowance procedure now in place. In fact, two procedures are going on in tandem right now. One of them is the disallowance procedure, whereby the report, having been introduced into the House and in the Senate, will receive a debate here, probably for the first time in parliamentary history. Sometime next week or this week it is possible we will have a debate in the House under the provisions in the Standing Orders that would allow that.

Normally, these debates do not happen. Usually what happens is the government complies and revokes the impugned regulation.

In this case, the government will in all likelihood revoke the impugned regulation, but the regulation in this context has to be replaced by a statutory provision. If there is no statutory provision, it is questionable whether the enforcement of the federal fishery in the Province of Ontario can continue.

The Ontario minister has flagged his concern at the likely disappearance of the regulation and the need for a statutory provision. The statutory provision, the one line in this bill, effectively creates an analogous provision to what was in the regulation.

Why did we have to make that change? Why was that regulation put under disallowance procedure? The reason is it is arguable that regulation creates an offence which is punishable in law. The committee, in its traditions going back a quarter century, says that regulations cannot create offences unless the House, through a statute, allows that to happen. Therefore, the bill would put into statutory form the offence creation mechanism that was in the regulations.

The regulatory provision, again, focuses on making conditions in a fishing licence a matter that could give rise to a breach of the Fisheries Act.

The member for Delta—Richmond East had mentioned that the committee was of the view that enforcement in the Ontario fishery could continue even without this impugned regulation. That was from an academic perspective. One could say that if there is a breach of a fishing licence condition, the government enforcing the provision has to revoke the licence. That is true

However, the way the fishery enforcement has evolved over the years has meant that those who enforce the fishery have relied on the existing framework of regulations and licence conditions and may not be in an administrative position to simply begin enforcing conditions by revocation of licence, which may involve either an administrative act or a court application. They are just not sure. Rather than throw the enforcement piece into some disarray arguably, the committee has accepted that this statutory provision would allow the same enforcement framework to continue.

The member for Delta--Richmond East has been assiduously pursing the modernization and rectification of some of the things in the Fisheries Act. He has made some points here today and will probably make some others. I encourage him to accept the big picture which would allow some margin of safety for those doing fisheries enforcement in the Ontario fishery. The member knows we are dealing with a fishery, and it is not a Sunday school environment. There is a certain way of doing things in the fishery. To destabilize enforcement could give rise to safety concerns for fishers and others.

The minister referred to a commitment to modernize the Fisheries Act, and that is important. The minister and the department have been in this mode of wanting to do a comprehensive review and modernization for some time now. I can see they have had some difficulty getting there.

One of the challenges of the Canadian fishery is the fact that it is not just one fishery. It is very complex, running through many provinces with fisheries on different coasts in the north, on the lakes and in the rivers. It is a complex thing. Some aboriginal fisheries have gone on for a long time. There are seasonal fisheries, offshore fisheries and inshore fisheries. I am not sure one size fits all. There are a lot of voices to be heard as the minister and the department move ahead to modernize, revise and provide better infrastructure for management.

I would ask members in the House to assess the bill and accept it as a one line bill intended to rectify a problem raised by colleagues in the House and reflected in the report of the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations. I would ask members to regard it as a constructive effort to respond virtually immediately to the report of the committee.

Some members will say that the department could have made this change last year, or the year before that or three years ago. It is true that the committee had reported previously without a disallowance motion on a broader package of concerns and a bill was introduced in the House last year. That bill addressed four or five separate concerns of the committee. In this new Parliament, the committee was still concerned about the offence creating mechanism in the regulations. It reported again, and we have the current situation.

I would urge members to allow quick passage of this one line bill to rectify the enforcement concerns that have been expressed. I know all members will approach the comprehensive review and reform in the way they always have. I look forward to those assessments and reviews, working on both sides of the House to try and bring about the changes that we believe are needed.

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, June 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate today on Bill C-360, which is an act to prevent psychological harassment in the workplace and to amend the Canada Labour Code.

The member opposite has identified an issue that is also of concern to us on this side of the House. The government and other stakeholders in federal jurisdictions have increasingly focused attention on issues surrounding the workplace environment, both physical and psychological.

Harassment in the workplace, how to identify it, how to control it and how to respond when it does occur, is an issue that officials in the labour program of the ministry take very seriously and it is something the government monitors closely. We have always been firmly committed to creating work environments where all employees are treated with respect and dignity all the time. We are working on a number of fronts to meet those objectives.

I will begin with some background.

As members of the House will recall, there are three parts of the Canada Labour Code. Part I deals with industrial relations matters such as union organizing, collective bargaining, mediation, conciliation, and so on. Part II deals with health and safety. Part III deals with employment standards, such as vacation entitlements, family benefits like parental leave, and also deals with the subject of sexual harassment.

Bill C-360 proposes some changes to part III of the Canada Labour Code. As I mentioned, part III already has provisions concerning sexual harassment. Employers are required to ensure that employees are not subject to sexual harassment. They are also required, after consultation with employees or their representatives, to issue and post a policy statement concerning sexual harassment. Bill C-360 would add psychological harassment to these requirements. However, this proposal may be premature.

Part III of the code is currently the subject of a comprehensive independent review. In addition, the bill is put forward as an attempt to deal with psychological harassment for federal civil servants, but part III of the code does not apply to the public service and is therefore not an appropriate instrument to respond to this issue.

Given that the target group of Bill C-360 is the federal public service, it is important to note that the Treasury Board already has policies in place regarding workplace harassment. In fact the Treasury Board introduced a policy to protect its employees from harassment more than 20 years ago. At that time it was the first employer in Canada to include personal harassment and abuse of authority as forms of harassment in its policies.

Beyond the central agencies, crown corporations are able to introduce their own programs on workplace harassment. The fact is that Canada's public sector is already doing a great deal to prevent and to protect its employees from workplace harassment. My colleagues will provide more information on measures that the Government of Canada has in place to ensure its workplaces are free of harassment. That will happen perhaps later in this debate, but let me return to the Canada Labour Code.

We believe the proper way to amend a complex piece of legislation such as that is through a comprehensive and holistic review with careful, extensive consultations with representatives of employers and employees. The Canada Labour Code is an important piece of legislation. Part III establishes basic working conditions and promotes fair, stable and cooperative workplaces while maintaining workplace flexibility.

If members recall, last December the Minister of Labour announced a major review of part III of the code through an independent commission led by Harry W. Arthurs. This review, which follows earlier reviews of parts I and II of the code, is now under way. Since the review is expected to produce proposals for legislative changes to part III, it would not be timely to move ahead with ad hoc changes as Bill C-360 proposes. Conversely, there are many reasons why it was timely to undertake a review of part III. In fact this section of the code has not had a comprehensive review for nearly 40 years.

The current review of part III will deal with the changing nature of work, the knowledge based economy and the need for extensive learning in the workplace. It recognizes the intensity of competition in the global marketplace with increased pressures on workplace productivity and responsiveness.

The review will also look at new forms of workplace structures and new forms of employment relationships, including work-life balance and the need to accommodate evolving family structures. Demographic issues like the aging of the workforce and increasing diversity will also be addressed.

In order to understand this broad context, Commissioner Arthurs has launched a very wide-ranging series of research projects, which will be made public.

Commissioner Arthurs wants to hear what Canadians have to say. They are invited to present their views on these issues as well as any other relevant issue. Persons making submissions are encouraged to take into account the impact of their recommendations on workers and their families, employers, communities and the Canadian economy as well.

It is expected that Commissioner Arthurs will present his report to the minister by early 2006. Assisting the commissioner is a panel of experts and special representatives of business and labour. We have asked Commissioner Arthurs to work toward a consensus on recommendations to the extent possible. I view the consultations and consensus building dimension of the commissioner's work to be extremely important.

Let us not forget that in other jurisdictions there is similar concern for the well-being of workers. As the member opposite has stated, legislation on psychological harassment was brought into effect in Quebec in June 2004. This was the first such legislation enacted in North America. The new legislation is being reviewed and an evaluation report is due to be published in 2006. We will review the report for information and monitor the Quebec experience closely.

The government is engaged on a number of fronts to address the kind of issues that Bill C-360 raises. Those of us on this side of the House are concerned about the implications of these developments as anyone else.

We on this side of the House commend the member opposite for bringing this matter to the House. We are equally interested in addressing these issues. However, because of the current review of Commissioner Arthurs and the other technical circumstances I outlined earlier, the bill may have difficulty securing sufficient support among members of the House.

[Privilege, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have two thoughts on this. What has been outlined to the House sounds a little like impersonation or identity theft. Those two actions may or may not be covered under the Criminal Code.

The second and more significant issue I would urge upon you, Mr. Speaker, is that these actions of impersonation, identity theft or using members' names and may interfere with the work of members of the House and it may interfere with the functions of the House collectively as positions, false or accurate, in relation to the members and their work are placed on the World Wide Web. I think that is the bigger issue. This is not just a domain name issue. It has to do with the functions of the House and the proper functioning of the House and its members collectively.

[Petitions, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of constituents in my riding and the surrounding area whereby they bring attention to the murder of Mr. Dharmeratnam Sivaram of Sri Lanka, a journalist. They condemn that murder.

They call upon the House to urge for an independent investigation into the murder. They urge the global community to do what it can to safeguard the safety of other Sri Lankan journalists in that country.

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify in this debate the issue of the mandate of Mr. Justice Gomery, the magic words in the mandate, which the opposition alleges circumscribe the ability of Mr. Justice Gomery to complete his work, are a finding of “criminal or civil liability”. He is not allowed to make a finding of criminal or civil liability. Those words stand by themselves.

I want to ask the hon. member about this. This would presumably not prevent the Gomery inquiry from reaching conclusions on facts. For example, if a person or a firm had billed falsely for certain work done, Mr. Justice Gomery could find a conclusion like that. That is a conclusion based on the facts but it does not reach a conclusion as to civil or criminal liability. Am I not correct?

[Symbol for the House of Commons, May 30th, 2005]

moved, seconded by the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park:

That the House hereby commits to the adoption of its own institutional symbol which will reflect its distinct constitutional role, heritage and authority, and for this purpose requests our Speaker to develop a process which would involve Members and the public, invite and consider design proposals, allow the House to make its selection and take steps to protect and promulgate the symbol in the public work of Members and the House, all to be completed within one year from this date or such later time as this House or a successor Parliament shall allow.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off the debate on the motion, a subject matter to which I have directed some attention over the years. I am hopeful the House will agree that it is time for us to consider the adoption of a unique symbol for the House of Commons.

I am pleased and want to thank the hon. member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park from the official opposition for seconding the motion. Clearly nothing is terribly partisan in the motion. It is an attempt to bring together the will of the House on a matter that I have believed always is important for the House.

The subject matter might seem narrow to some members when compared to other private members' business subject matters often debated and raised in the House but it is one that looks at the House itself and not outwardly at the broader public interest.

The House of Commons, as most members would accept, is a lynchpin in our constitutional form of governance. We are not the only part of government. The public sees the executive branch of government in most of what it does. The executive branch carries on most of the functions of government but the executive and the thousands of public servants working in the executive would simply have no legitimacy, no accountability if it were not for this House and the role played by this House.

Similarly, the judiciary, another branch of our form of constitutional government, would not have any laws democratically passed. It would have no laws to adjudicate if this House did not create the laws and amend them from time to time.

I review this only for the purpose of making the point that this House and its functions are important to the overall functioning of our democracy. It is the lynchpin institution without which the rest of government would not function at all as we know it now.

Over the years I have been struck by the degree to which members of this House have borrowed other symbols in their day to day work. When we look at our business cards, our letterhead, our stationery and our press releases we seem to want a symbol but we borrow those symbols. One of those symbols is the Canadian flag. Many of us use the flag and there is no problem in using it but it is not a symbol unique to this House.

The other symbol often used is the coat of arms. We find it consistently in use right across government. If we go down the street to the Supreme Court of Canada we will find the coat of arms. When we drop into any of the minister's office from time to time we find the coat of arms. The coat of arms is used by all of government. It is used at Rideau Hall by the Governor General to represent the unity of the Crown and all of Canada.

There is no harm in members using the coat of arms. In fact, it is placed right at the top of my own business card which I use as a member of Parliament. However it is not a parliamentary symbol as such. I say again that we borrow these symbols because we do not have our own.

It seems to me that just about all our historic partners in the evolution of democratic government have adopted their own symbols. I will refer to Westminster, the U.K. House of Commons. It has adopted a symbol called a stylized portcullis, the portcullis being the big gate that stands at the entrance to the castle, and it is unique to the British House of Commons.

As for our American neighbours, the symbol used by the House of Representatives is a stylized seal. It is found on most of what members of the U.S. House of Representatives do from time to time in their correspondence and communications.

Our own Speaker has his own symbol. Most members know what it is. It is the mace. The Speaker has used that symbol for many years. It is the symbol of the Speaker, not the House, although we find it from time to time on House documents wherein the Speaker has a role. Again let me note that even our own Speaker has a symbol but we generally in the House do not.

I want to underscore the importance of a symbol, a wordmark or what is called a trademark in modern communications. I suppose I do not have to make the point too strongly. I think most members will accept that in our society, and in the world in general, trademarks, symbols and wordmarks are incredibly important in communications.

One can see corporate or institutional symbols everywhere. The CBC has its own trademark symbol, as do General Motors and all of the television networks, including CTV and Global. I do not want to leave anyone out. The universities all have their symbols. My own high school has its own symbol, which is on a coffee mug that I still use from time to time. All of these symbols are part of a global industry in trademarks and wordmarks. They are all there for the purpose of assisting with communications.

We in the House do not have one. Even Canada itself adopted the Canada wordmark approximately three decades ago. That is the word Canada with a small Canadian flag placed above the last “a” in the word Canada. That has been a very successful communications device used by Canada consistently over the years. I think I saw it on military aircraft not too long ago. Then there is the Canadian armed forces, which is a very good example of the use of insignia, shoulder flashes and badges, symbols of the Canadian armed forces.

All of our institutions in society sooner or later get around to adopting a symbol; we just do not have one here yet. I believe that we need one for this institution to reflect our unique role as distinct from that of the executive, the judiciary in our country and as distinct from the other organs and agencies of government. We should have one. I think it will help us continue the role of making Canadians better aware of the functions and purposes of the House of Commons.

If we happen to look around the House we will note that the place is almost literally festooned with art as symbols. Various symbols are carved in the wood of our desks. We have stone carvings on the walls. We have stained glass windows with symbols and art. We have a ceiling with many symbols. I believe it was a gift of linen from the people of Ireland many years ago; it is still in good shape.

There are a lot of symbols but there is no House of Commons symbol. The great oak doors at the entrance to the House have carvings on them that are representative of many different things. There are also carvings all around the lobby, but there is no House of Commons symbol. There should be. I am looking forward to the day when there can be. I think we should seize this opportunity now, join the 21st century, adopt a symbol that reflects this place and embark on that process.

As I said, I do not see anything terribly partisan in this. I am hopeful of having support from all members of the House to embark on the process. As the motion says, this is a process led by the Speaker with consultations inside and outside the House. The consultations would produce one or more proposals which the House could deal with and select from. I am hopeful that the symbol we choose will be here for Canadians long after we have left this place, perhaps for centuries.

I encourage members to look favourably upon the motion and to consider adopting it. It is possible for us to adopt this motion today without going into further debate, but if there is a vote, I would ask members to consider voting in favour.

[Age of Consent, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that we are debating a motion tonight as opposed to a bill. It is simpler to deal with the motion. It is more flexible in terms of House procedures. While adoption of the motion would not directly bring about a change in the law, it is intended to influence the evolution of the law.

The object of the motion is to protect young people believed to be vulnerable. I think most people in the House regard young Canadians as sometimes vulnerable in some contexts. As I see it, the difficulty in this area perhaps began back in 1988. In the remarks by the mover of the motion, she referred to the reforms in 1988 of the definitions used to proscribe and prohibit sexual assault, or rape as we called it in the old days, and other sexual assaults.

At that time, the sexual assaults were bundled into one definition of sexual assault. The definition does not distinguish between matters such as sexual touching, which could be a sexual assault in some contexts, and other more aggressive sexual assaults. If one is looking at a spectrum, sexual intercourse by rape. As a result of that, when it comes to defining sexual conduct and what is prohibited, because of the bundled definition in the Criminal Code, we are forced to use the big basket definition rather than an individual one.

When we talk about sexual assault or activity, we are not referring only to sexual intercourse. Because of the definitions within the Criminal Code, we are forced to deal with the full bundle of sexual activity that is described by the term “sexual assault”. That should be kept in mind as I make my remarks and as other members debate this. We are talking about sexual touching as well as other sexual conduct.

That makes it sometimes difficult because some Canadians have certain views of some types of sexual activity and different views on other types of sexual activity. For example, a game of spin the bottle by 15 year olds, might garner a reaction from some Canadians a certain way but not others. Yet the motion includes all the above.

When I look at our young people, I am concerned because I am not sure I can make a distinction between a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old or a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old. The motion recommends that we remove the ability to provide consent, therefore, create a prohibition on all sexual activity for anyone 14 or 15 years of age, even if the 15-year-old associates with a 16-year-old. This is a conceptual problem but a real problem. We are in a sense remaking the Criminal Code, reaching down into the conduct between two young people and criminalizing it in effect by changing the definitions.

While I respect the objective, I have concerns about how it is done. The Criminal Code has been evolving, but there is now a recognition that there is a problem related to the luring of young people into situations, the inducement coming not from the boyfriend or girlfriend but from adults.

That is sometimes happening on the Internet now, where there is much freer communication between people and their desktop computers and, as members around here know, even with BlackBerries. There is a lot of communicating. If that communicating involves the luring of a young person by an adult, a 15 year old or 14 year old young person, Canadians find that quite objectionable. I do too. I think every member in the House finds it objectionable.

I want to commend to the House the approach taken by Bill C-2. My colleague on this side of the House has described the bill. The bill takes a different approach. It certainly is there to protect our children, but it focuses on the persons who attempt to induce the sexual conduct, who attempt to induce the vulnerable. That bill is currently before the justice committee. It proposes the creation of a new prohibition against sexual exploitation of a young person between the ages of 14 and 18.

We should note that the current motion deals with the category of ages 14 and 15. The new Criminal Code bill deals with ages 14 to 18, the full range of underage persons who might be lured into sexual exploitation.

With the new prohibition, the focus is on the wrongful conduct or behaviour of the accused person, the person doing the luring. Just as when there is a sexual assault case between adults, the proscribed conduct is not with the young person, the victim, but with the person who engages in the luring. The consent of the young person is actually not relevant here. The person does not have to consent or not consent. What we have happening, in the typical case I have mentioned, is an adult person seducing the younger one.

Under Bill C-2, a court could infer that a sexual relationship with a young person is exploitative of the young person, and therefore prohibited, by considering the nature of the relationship and the circumstances surrounding it. One consideration is the age difference between the youth and the accused person. Next is the evolution of the relationship. For example, did it develop quickly? Did it develop over the Internet? Where did that relationship evolve? Last is the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person by the accused.

In other words, Bill C-2 includes a list of factors, not just chronological age. I think that most reasonable people will acknowledge that factors like these will be a better indicator of a young person's vulnerability. That is a key difference between what the motion recommends and what Bill C-2 is intending to define in this Criminal Code amendment.

As I understand it, that bill is before committee now and it is anticipated that it could be back into the House very shortly at report stage, within days, and that will allow the House and Canadians to have a better look at it.

In the meantime, we are discussing this motion. As I say, it is a bona fide initiative intended to regularize an area where we have seen some difficulty.

In dealing with Bill C-2 again, with the broader consideration of all of the indicia of exploitation, we recognize that some youth may be vulnerable to being exploited, not only by persons who are much older but in some cases even by their peers. Again, the vulnerable person might be vulnerable in many contexts: by age, by maturity or in terms of other factors. Bill C-2 will take those factors into account.

I have already pointed out that the bill deals with the age group of 14 to 17 years, whereas the motion does not.

I acknowledge the importance of this debate. It is important that Canadians understand some of these differences as we attempt to address this area of concern. I believe that the bill before Parliament will. There will be more debate on it later.

I congratulate the member for taking up the issue in private members' business.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order because the member opposite has made a reference to crooks. There was also a previous reference to handcuffs. There are a lot of people watching the proceedings of the House today and I am asking colleagues in a respectful way, including colleagues opposite, to try to keep the debate civil and to avoid unparliamentary language. We will get through the day and get to the vote tonight, but if we are not careful, we are going to have more problems than we are ready to deal with.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, first, let me acknowledge the remarks of the member. He has served here for a number of years and in a relative way his remarks are probably about as objective as we are going to get from the opposition these days on some of those issues. I appreciate his efforts to be fair in dealing with those issues.

I would like to back up a little to his comments on the budget rather than the sponsorship inquiry because the budget is the subject of the debate here. I know that his party urges tax cuts. Actually, most of us on this side of the House urge tax cuts. I am hopeful that at some point we can address in a more robust way the corporate tax cut provisions that were initially part of the budget.

However, I am concerned, and I would like him to address this, that by urging major tax cuts one removes from government the ability to do things that Canadians want the government to do. The Conservative Party in Ontario tried that. It tried to push government into a smaller and smaller box. Ontarians did not accept it and those tax cuts pushed that government into a huge deficit position.

Tax cuts are fine provided that they allow government to continue to do what Canadians want government to do, and do not push us into deficit. Could I ask him to address that?

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, another aspect of refugee determination involves the relatively large proportion of refugee claimants who come across the border from the United States. They are not just Americans claiming refugee status, but people from other countries who have found their way into the United States and have decided to come across the border. It includes some refugees from Central America as well.

I wonder if the department has had sufficient experience with the new safe third country agreement that was entered into happily between Canada and the United States just over the last year or so. I was happy I did not hold my breath waiting for that agreement. It took a long time to negotiate it and a long time for the United States Congress and officials here to actually put that treaty into place, but it finally happened.

Since there has been such a high proportion of refugees coming across the border, I wonder if we are able to make any kind of assessment as to how that has impacted our refugee claim numbers. My guess would be that our refugee claim numbers would drop substantially because the agreement provides that any refugee claimant, with a few exceptions, who come to the Canadian border from the United States must go back and have their refugee claims determined in the United States. The agreement works both ways with parties in Canada going to the U.S. being similarly dealt with here.

I wonder if there has been enough experience yet. Could the minister comment on that?