Gerald Keddy

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely serious debate we are entering into today on Bill C-329, an act to amend the criminal code involving the protection of children. The member for Vancouver East presented the bill with good intentions. However good intentions do not always gain their desired ends.

I was not able to listen to all of the speech by the member for Vancouver East but I did listen to the latter part of it. During her speech she suggested section 43 of the criminal code allowed corporal punishment to the extreme. She suggested it allowed people to hit and beat individuals. That is simply not the case. Section 43 clearly prohibits hitting and beating children. That is the point of the section.

I will take a moment to read section 43 of the criminal code as a few other speakers have done. It reads:

Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

The quote should read “their care” rather than “his care.”

I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be. However it could be argued that without section 43 of the criminal code we would be prevented from using reasonable force to prevent children from seriously hurting themselves by, for example, riding a bike off a cliff or running in front of a car.

Such circumstances may require force. This could seem unreasonable at the time but would be reasonable in that it may prevent children from injuring or even killing themselves. That is not what this debate is about nor do I think it was the intent of the hon. member for Vancouver East.

We have before us a subject which has been debated in other countries and other lands. Some nations have chosen to move away from corporal punishment for children and have made it against the law. Does that mean they are right and Canada is wrong? I question that. Does it mean we should follow in their footsteps? Not necessarily.

Does it mean we should engage in this debate? Perhaps it is time we had this debate. Perhaps it is time to look at the law as it is written. Perhaps it is time we dust it off, look at its bare bones, expose it to the sunlight and decide if we want to keep it on the books.

I think if we do that we will choose to keep the section on the books and allow parents the right to use force to discipline their children if it is deemed necessary. In no way, shape or form does section 43 condone physically beating or hitting a child. It should not be interpreted or used that way. It is not a defence for improper use of force. It is a defence for correcting a child, not for beating or abusing a child.

The very end of section 43 states “if the force does not exceed what is reasonable”. I suspect that would be up to a judge to interpret.

In today's society violence is not tolerated in the same way that it was a generation ago which is a good thing. Family violence is no longer tolerated at all. Society's values have changed. Because of the good, tireless work by family and children's services throughout the nation, along with the intervention of the courts, increased protection for children is now offered. That increased protection is offered because it was required.

There is no corporal punishment today in public schools. However, there remain instances where, after everything else has been tried, physical correction is necessary to stop dangerous behaviour, to protect other children, protect society in general, or protect the very child whose behaviour is endangering themselves.

Section 43 enables parents to do the best job possible of raising their children and gives them an option. It is not an option that most parents choose to take. It is not an option that is abused on a continual basis. The law very clearly prevents that abuse. Parents can be charged. They can be taken to court and their children can be taken away from them. It protects the rights of parents in accordance with their particular moral and religious beliefs. It reflects their personal knowledge of the unique characteristics of their own children, of how best to discipline their children, through knowledge gained from their parents and their own experiences during childhood.

It must be understood that this does not condone corporal punishment. This says that corporal punishment is one way of disciplining a child. Certainly for myself, my friends and my peers it is absolutely the method of last resort. I do not think we say that enough. People do not get up in the morning thinking of how they are going to punish their children. People react to circumstances. When circumstances require corporal punishment, I do not think the state can intervene if the force used is not excessive.

Under the current law, parents are allowed to use physical correction to discipline their children as long as it is not abusive and is reasonable under the circumstances. Before the implementation of section 43, there was no law placing limits on physical correction. This is an important point.

Section 43 does exactly that. It places limits on physical correction. Without question, those limits are needed. There were no government agencies at that time to protect children from abuse. Section 43 was implemented to protect children from abuse. It was well conceived. Even though it may be 100 years old, it continues to serve its purpose today.

There are critics of section 43. Some children's rights advocates want section 43 declared by the courts to be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I understand there is a case before the courts now and a decision will be brought down.

The implications of this effort are that the state is directly interfering with good and loving parents who believe there are circumstances where the most responsible means of discipline is judicious physical correction. This would make those individuals criminals under the law. I do not think that is what the Parliament of Canada is about. I do not think that is what we want to do.

Should we engage in this debate? Absolutely. I have no difficulty in doing that. We should expose section 43 to the full light of day and at the same time recognize its positive aspects and look at some of the negative aspects of section 43. Is it time to update the law? Perhaps it is.

As the bill is written, the PC/DR Coalition certainly is eager to engage in the debate. We respect what the member is trying to do, but we do not agree with the premise and will not support the bill.

[Lobster Fishery, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there are serious concerns throughout the Nova Scotia lobster fishery that the minister of fisheries is losing touch with industry.

Fishermen and buyers in lobster fishing area 33 and lobster fishing area 34 are fearful that DFO intends to move to a minimum carapace length of three and a half inches in an attempt to increase egg production. This potential carapace length increase to three and a half inches could cause loss of market share to Nova Scotian exporters.

Does the minister of fisheries realize that this increase could result in an oversupply of larger lobster and a complete loss of the one pound to one and one-third pound export market?

Fisherman and buyers want to be part of a solution to increase lobster egg production. They want to be informed and involved. They do not want to be victims of misguided DFO policy. The minister must commit to working with industry.

[Points of Order, November 7th, 2001]

It was inappropriate.

[Softwood Lumber, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, maritime softwood lumber producers are reeling from the impact the 12.6% anti-dumping duty will have on the economy and their livelihoods.

In situations reflected across this country, workers in the softwood lumber sector, already faced with hardships of an economic downturn, dare I say recession, are further curtailed by this unfair duty.

It is particularly unfair to Atlantic Canadians because, as Nova Scotia premier, John Hamm, has pointed out, the maritimes have always enjoyed unrestricted access to the U.S. market. Now that has changed. Not only are loggers affected, truckers, mill workers and others are all being negatively affected by this unfair duty, and all because of the political decision by this government not to defend Canada's interests.

The United States is dependent on affordable, accessible Canadian softwood lumber for its construction industry. Lumber companies from British Columbia to Nova Scotia have shown that they are fed up with the government's inaction. When are Canadians going to see this government stand up for Canada's interests?

[St. John's Anglican Church, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a devastating fire in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, destroyed St. John's Anglican Church, the second oldest Anglican church in North America, a provincial heritage property and a national historic site.

It started in 1754 when the church's oak frame was brought from Boston. The church was built over a period of nine years by shipwright carpenters. An integral part of Lunenburg, St. John's was well known for its nativity scenes at Christmas and its 10 bells that rang daily at 2 p.m. It was also the burial site for some of the earliest settlers in the area.

I commend Lunenburg Fire Chief Terry Conrad and firefighters who battled the blaze. Although unable to save the structure, firefighters, church members and area residents managed to remove the hand carved altar and other artifacts.

Today our thoughts go out to church rector Reverend Irving Letto and Lunenburg residents. They as well as all Canadians have lost an important part of our heritage.

[Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, without having been at committee to listen to all of the argument it is difficult to respond, but I will respond to the member's direct question.

It would seem that the government has once again, in pursuing legislation, just simply ignored some amendments that certainly would have improved the legislation and allowed for more self-government.

As far as charging a fee for water is concerned, the area of Nunavut is still a territory although we may not completely support that and would expect that it would move toward further and greater self-government and actually to complete responsibility for its own area. However, as long as it is a territory the minister would have to sign and it makes absolutely no sense that the minister would have final authority for water on Nunavut owned lands. The whole principle behind the evolution of responsibility and devolution of power is to actually give power to Inuit organizations, to first nations.

A good example of that for the hon. member is Bill C-49, which we passed in this House. It gave greater power and full control of land and the resources on it to first nations on reserves in southern Canada. There were 14 first nations in the original group in Bill C-49 when we passed that legislation. For the first time it gave those first nations full control of land use on reserves.

Many Canadians thought that first nations already had full control of land use on reserves, but they absolutely did not. They needed a permit from the minister if they were to cut logs, cut firewood, dig a well, put in a septic system, gravel a road, build a road or even start a gravel pit.

This is good legislation. It is legislation that is needed, but it is certainly not the end of the road for this piece of legislation or any other. It is not untypical of a lot of legislation that the government brings in. It goes partway but it really does not finish the job.

I hope those comments are satisfactory to the member.

[Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, part of the issue that we take with this legislation is that in my opinion it is not clear on subsurface rights. It certainly does not have the same type of context that we had in either the Canada-Newfoundland or Canada-Nova Scotia offshore agreements. More clarity is obviously needed in that respect.

I noted with interest that the hon. member mentioned that the southern shore of Newfoundland is a hotbed of hockey. Certainly one of the things he might be interested in is the fact that hockey is a very intensely played game in Nunavut and all over Canada's north. It would be an adventure, perhaps, to see the players on the southern shore of Newfoundland challenge some of the players in the north. It would be a long way to travel to lose a game of hockey, but I suggest that he might want to try that.

The issue of subsurface rights was part of the hon. member's question. Subsurface rights are fairly well described in this legislation in regard to the Nunavut land claims areas. There is no guarantee that the federal government gives the local government first option on subsurface rights outside of the land claims areas as far as my definition of the bill goes. It absolutely needs greater clarity and we will be revisiting that aspect of the bill.

[Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, November 2nd, 2001]

That is a good question and obviously it is one of the problems with this piece of legislation.

The point of the legislation is to give the local territorial government and the people who live in Nunavut control over their water and their subsurface and surface rights. Yet they would be constantly coming back to a minister of the crown in Ottawa, which quite frankly is a long way from the people who live in the north not only in geographical distance but in thought process.

A great example of that, to which I always refer when I speak about Nunavut, is that it takes as long to fly from Ottawa to Vancouver as it takes to fly from Ottawa to Iqaluit. That is a huge geographical distance. The people who live in the area should be the ones who set their own governance.

The pros of the legislation are that it would allow more self-government and more input from the people who live in the area. Bill C-33 would improve on previous legislation and allow for further governance by local people and Inuit groups who live in Nunavut. It would give them control, although not complete control, over one of the earth's most precious resources which is of course water.

Both boards would be subject to an annual audit although it would be a directive of the minister and the auditor general.

The legislation has cons as well. A negative point of Bill C-33 which I have already touched on is that it would allow for too much ministerial power. I cannot say it any simpler than that. The minister would appoint the boards and could dismiss members. I should preface my comments by noting that the minister would have to consult with local Inuit organizations. However he could still dismiss members.

The issuance, amendment, renewal and cancellation of licences would all be subject to approval of the minister. I hope the minister would see fit to follow the advice of legislative people and Inuit groups in Nunavut when taking these assessments into account.

Under the legislation the minister would have the right to override the direction of water board inspectors and the recommendations they may make for dealing with licence infractions.

The aboriginal affairs committee passed an amendment that would place a time limit within which the minister would have to respond regarding licences. The amendment stipulates that the minister must either return a decision to the Nunavut water board within 45 days or request an extension up to a maximum of another 45 days. If the minister has not returned a decision to the water board by that time the licence would be deemed approved.

We in our party supported the amendment. A similar amendment had been proposed by our PC/DR coalition member and aboriginal affairs critic from Edmonton North. Her amendment would have proposed a timeframe of 60 days. We were more than happy to support a timeframe of 45 days.

Certainly the recommendation of the coalition is that we would support this type of legislation. It would provide the necessary mechanisms to flesh out the obligations to the Nunavut land claims agreement and would be beneficial in the long run for the economic development of the north.

In conclusion, this is the type of legislation that the coalition has tended to support. It goes that extra step in bringing self-government and legislative powers to the north. It still has a bit too much federal government interference on the behalf of the minister and we hope that the minister would show a fair amount of discretion with that power and would tend to go along with recommendations made by the people who actually live in Nunavut.

Of course it is also our hope and sincere wish that this would be another step on the way to complete self-government for the people of Canada's Arctic. Not only Nunavut but also the Northwest Territories and Yukon should be constantly on their way to becoming provinces and full partners in the Canadian federation even though they have huge geographic land masses and low numbers of people. That is certainly the direction in which we would expect the legislation to evolve.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33. I appreciate having the opportunity to present my thoughts and the thoughts of the PC/DRC coalition to parliament.

[Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-33 at third reading and to speak on behalf of my coalition colleague from Edmonton North who is our aboriginal affairs critic.

This issue has been a long time coming. The bill would put legislation into place to allow institutions to be set up in Nunavut to continue it on the road to proper self-government.

All along we have seen similar legislation being put in place in Yukon and NWT. Even though it is not perfect and other amendments should perhaps have been made, as some of my colleagues mentioned earlier, Bill C-33 is better than no legislation at all. It would benefit the people who live in the territory it is meant to apply to.

The purpose of the bill is to implement the obligations of the Nunavut land claims agreement which was passed in 1993. Specifically it outlines regulations for the operation of the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal including the Nunavut water board's inspection and enforcement powers. It would also clarify the jurisdictions of both the water board and the surface rights tribunal.

The bill is set up in two parts. The first part controls the Nunavut water board. The second part controls the Nunavut surface rights tribunal. The Nunavut water board has been operational since 1995. Seeing as this is 2001 it is absolutely time we caught up to the board. The legislation would allow the board to operate legally.

Under Bill C-33 the Nunavut water board would consist of nine members appointed by the minister. Half the members would be nominated by designated local Inuit organizations. A quarter of the members would be nominated by the territorial minister responsible for renewable resources or by other designated territorial ministers.

The issue is that the minister would still clearly appoint a quarter of the members with perhaps no consultation at all with the people who live in the area. The local Inuit group would get to put up only half the members. It would have been a more effective bill if all the people could have been appointed by local governing agencies in Nunavut and by the people who live in the area who are affected by the legislation.

The Nunavut water board would issue licences to individuals and organizations whose operations would impact on Nunavut's water resources including water use and waste deposit. However the board could not issue licences for applicants whose operations may have an adverse effect on the local environment until the applicant and affected parties agreed to a compensation package. This would involve accountability, adequate public knowledge and all the basic things we would find in similar legislation. The minister would have final approval for the licences.

The issue is that we are attempting to provide legislation for increased self-government in Nunavut. We have done the same thing in Yukon and NWT. Yet we are still allowing the minister of the crown in the federal government to have final say.

The second part of the legislation deals with the Nunavut surface rights tribunal. This has been in operation since 1996, but the legislation would establish the tribunal as required and promised by the Nunavut land claims agreement.

The tribunal would resolve disputes regarding subsurface rights, sand and gravel on Inuit owned land and loss to Inuit from damage to wildlife, oil spills, et cetera. It would establish the terms and conditions of right of access to Inuit owned lands and determine liability and compensation due to the Inuit in case of damage.

Another board would be set up consisting of a chairperson plus two to ten other members approved by the minister, two of whom must be resident in Nunavut. It seems there would constantly be an odd number of members on the tribunal, which raises some questions. Again the minister would have the final say.

[Trade, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is time that the government took a serious look at some type of North American trade perimeter. North American internal security is threatened and more resources are required at the border. We could supply those resources for security if we were not doing double duty at the border checking both security and trade.

It is time to ask why a container that is checked and sealed in Halifax, Vancouver, New York City or Mexico City needs to be stopped and checked again when it crosses the border regardless of its destination. The dollars freed up by this so-called trade perimeter could then be concentrated on protecting the security of the individual partners and not curtailing trade.

I do not expect the government to show leadership on this issue until Canadian public opinion forces it to do so. However it is past time that the positive and the negative aspects of such an idea were debated and assessed in parliament.