Joe Comartin

[Nuclear Waste Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend my colleague from the Bloc for moving these amendments. I wish others also had got through the screening process. However before I address them specifically, there is a general pattern in the amendments here which address the major concerns that I believe all opposition parties have to the way the bill has been drafted.

The reason we all share that concern I think is because of the recommendations of the Seaborn panel contained in the Seaborn report as it is referred to. Underlying the report were the findings it made about how the general public did not trust the process that had been undertaken up to that point and the manner with which nuclear waste would be dealt.

As drafted, the bill would nothing to increase the Canadian public's sense of well-being in how nuclear waste would be dealt with. The comfort level, if anything, will deteriorate because the bill as drafted would not deal with a number of the points that are dealt with in these amendments. It would not allow for significant participation by the community. It would not be open and accountable in many respects.

Some of the proposals that have been made by my colleague from the Bloc, address some of those concerns. Amendment No. 2, which was allowed through, would provide for some review and involvement by a parliamentary committee as opposed to almost the complete exclusion of parliament, a parliamentary committee and parliamentary democracy from the process. If the bill goes through, it will be on the government's side and parliament will see very little of the process.

The proposed amendment would at least allow for a parliamentary committee that would have some review power. Quite frankly, it would be a lot less than what was proposed in a number of amendments at committee. The committee process was interesting. Not only were they summarily rejected, but we generally could not even get the government members to make a response. Opposition members made arguments or proposals on their amendments, good and valid comments. There were at least 74 amendments proposed. Other than on four or five proposals, we got no response from the government at all. It was not a democratic process. It was a charade.

Therefore, I strongly support the amendment. If it goes through, it will at least reintroduce some concept of democracy to the process and allow us as members of the committee to have some review and some input as to how the nuclear corporation, which will dispose of these wastes some point down the road, will be established.

The second amendment before us is one which again goes to the whole issue of building trust with the community that could be affected by any decisions made by the waste management organization. It indicates that there is a potential for a conflict of interest or at the very least an appearance of a conflict of interest by the people who will be an exclusive part of the WMO. The people who produce the waste would now be delegated to make almost 100% of the recommendations and decisions around it. Only the final decision would be made by cabinet as to how waste would be disposed.

The input level for the general population is almost miniscule. It is almost entirely controlled by the nuclear industry. If the government thinks it is going to be able to sell that to Canadians, I suggest it go back once again and read the Seaborn report. It obviously has not digested it; it has not taken it into its psyche. If bill, composed as it is, goes through, there is no way we will find a community in Canada that will be willing to accept these wastes, in whatever form we ultimately decide to dispose of them.

The final amendment, which is the sixth one in the list that we proposed and the third one that was allowed, is about consultation.

At committee, we heard from a number of groups that had worked on this issue, some for 10 or 12 years. Quite frankly, I want to acknowledge, and I probably will again when I speak to it on third reading, the input we received from three mayors of towns in Ontario who have nuclear plants in their communities.

They were quite eloquent on the impact that those plants have had on their communities. They dominate a good deal of the issues, planning, zoning, et cetera, with which those communities and the elected officials at the municipal level have to deal. They were also very strong in saying to the committee they were entitled to representation on this board if they were the ones who were going to be most impacted.

They also shared with us a strong argument as to why communities, which were the recipients of these wastes, should have an entitlement to be involved at that level, the very centre of the decision making process. They said that all aspects of the issues would be considered, input would be taken from all the appropriate groups and communities rather than just the industry itself, which to a great degree is the way the bill is constructed.

We heard from environmental groups at the committee. We took testimony from them about their involvement and their concerns, not only for themselves, because of the work they had done on it, but for the general Canadian populace.

They also spoke eloquently about the need to involve the communities that would be considered as depositories for these wastes. If one looks at the bill in its entirety as it is now, the government has ignored those communities, those groups and those mayors.

To conclude, if the government is at all serious, if it has any belief at all that the communities out there, where these wastes may eventually go, will respond with any degree of trust and openness to proposals for them to become depositories, then these amendments should be allowed to go through.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the amendments let me say, as I believe several other members of our party have indicated, that the NDP is heartily opposed to the bill. We intend to vote against it when it finally gets to third reading if it remains in anywhere near the shape it is in now.

I want to specifically address the amendments that are part of Group No. 1 and congratulate my Alliance colleague from Lanark--Carleton for his first amendment, which is before us today. I believe it is one that we have a particular reason to support. This section deals with the categorization of a terrorist activity as “an act or omission in or outside Canada that is committed in whole or in part”, and these are the crucial and offensive words, “for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause”. This wording is offensive. It is offensive because of what it does. It is also offensive because it is not necessary. In terms of what the government is trying to do with the bill, it is sufficient in the rest of the sections to deal with the issue of the use of violence for the purpose of intimidation et cetera. This item (A) is not necessary.

The offence comes because of the mindset that I believe it creates in the country, the message that we are sending to our security and police forces, those men and women who will be conducting investigations and who will be targeting certain groups of people specifically because of this section. Those people who will end up being targeted are those members who practice the Islam faith, members from the Arab community and, yes, members of this party, social democrats, union members and social activists generally.

The reason I speak forcefully on this is because of the information that came out last week about the investigation and surveillance that a former leader of this party suffered from the RCMP for his entire career, from the time he was a student in university until he was the leader of this party in the House. He was under surveillance for all that time.

This type of legislation simply reinforces the thinking of some of the members of our security forces who immediately think that if a person is a member of a union or of the NDP that person is somehow suspect. I believe that will extend to people who practice the Islam faith or are from the Arab community. I do not want to criticize our entire security force in this vein, but I do want to be critical of the government because what this does is reinforce the thinking of people like that within the security forces.

It is reported from the archives that with regard to Mr. Lewis the reason they were investigating him, according to one of the intelligence officers, going back to 1940, was that he was “disposed to criticism of the existing political structure”. That is all he had to do to warrant investigation that followed him for his entire adult life. He had to be “disposed to criticism of the existing political structure”. Would that take into account 50%, 60% or 70% of the public who from time to time are critical of the existing political structure?

They surveilled him because he decried the suppression of free speech in Canada, so are all the opposition parties who say to the government that it would be suppressing free speech in Canada with the bill going to be subject to investigation and surveillance? I have heard the suggestion that it may already be happening. Mr. Lewis was investigated because he opposed new military spending and because of his efforts on behalf of the unemployed. Is my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst, who has done so much with regard to that, now going to be investigated because that is a political objective that may be offensive?

I am not suggesting it will result in any charges but it will precipitate investigation. He was tracked for his involvement with various anti-establishment causes including nuclear disarmament during the sixties and seventies. He fought for that and was put under surveillance. His opposition to the Vietnam war also put him under surveillance.

This section is not necessary for the purpose of the bill. However the door that it opens is offensive. I ask the government to do some rethinking on this point and accept the amendment moved by the Alliance member for Lanark--Carleton.

Another amendment I would like to speak to is the fourth in the group which comes from the leader of the fifth party, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. His amendment recognizes that the bill does not go far enough in terms of protecting people's right to counsel.

If people were charged under the law which would flow from the bill, they would be entitled to legal representation according to the standards and values of the country and our legal system which has been built over several centuries. To put a section in the bill that says that is not enough.

The amendment asks the government to allow a judge to appoint counsel if a person cannot afford one. Under the Immigration Act 30-odd people have been detained for lengthy periods of time since September 11. A good number of those people are recent immigrants. They are still entitled to legal representation whether or not they committed any offence. A good number of them are in financial situations where they cannot afford it.

Earlier a member of the Alliance gave some background information on how poorly off the legal aid system was across the country. I want to echo that sentiment because it is very real.

If a judge does not have the authority to appoint counsel, we would see a good number of people who do not have the financial means to deal with this very complex legislation requiring very sophisticated defences to deal with it. Subsequently if arrangements could not be made to cover the cost of defence then there would be no defence at all. An accused would be left on his own.

That is offensive to our legal system. That was changed about 30 or 40 years ago when the legal aid system was introduced. We recognize the need for counsel. We know many people are accused and convicted improperly if they do not have legal counsel. The system does not work well. I applaud the motion by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and the NDP will be more than happy to support it.

[The Environment, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when NAFTA was signed we were assured that a commission would be established to act as a watchdog to protect national environmental interests. Recently the staff of that commission recommended a full investigation regarding the lack of enforcement of Canadian environmental laws. Subsequently, senior staff in the Department of the Environment in Canada and in the United States overturned that and restricted the investigation.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Will he reverse that decision and direct his staff to allow the commission to do its job and allow a full investigation?

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, there are two parts to the question asked by my colleague from the Bloc, at least in my perception. I will address it in those two ways.

First, concerning the whole question of consultation I agree with the member. At the same time the bill has been working its way through the committee and now into the House we have also been working on a bill regarding endangered species, the so-called SARA legislation.

It is interesting to look at the amount of consultation that has been built into the endangered species bill. It is a lot longer than this one. It has many more sections and pages. A good deal of them address the issue of consultation. The consultative process provided for by SARA is much more meaningful than the process provided for by this bill. It has few provisions and quite frankly they are fairly superficial.

Second, I will give two answers to the question of why there are three departments; fisheries and oceans, environment and now heritage. It is an excellent question. I will not even pretend to defend the government's answer that we got at committee stage because there was not one. However I will make this point.

There were two other instances where we could have done something to protect conservation areas. We have not, even though we heard questions earlier about the ones off the east coast and the ones that are being worked on. There is little protection. The two departments have not done anything to protect conservation areas up to this point.

We need legislation. This bill unfortunately is not it. It would not provide the protection these reserves, if we could get them, would absolutely need. The bill would not provide it.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the last exchange between the Alliance and the Liberals and to their positions. Let me immediately put our party's position on the record. The legislation does not go far enough.

The balance we are talking about and to which my friend referred at the end of his comments has not been achieved. The bill is about a failed opportunity on the part of the government. The opportunity we had was to do what we did with our on land parks: to create reserves offshore much as we have over the last century onshore. The bill would not do that.

We had the opportunity to produce a bill which would provide real protection to marine habitat, species and delicate ecosystems. The bill does not accomplish any of those goals.

We all expect the bill will go through given the majority government, but when it becomes law it will leave us way behind where a number of other nations have gone up to this point. The whole movement in Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and other countries that have similar economic development to ours started and got going quite strongly 20 or 25 years ago. However it followed a pattern we are not following and created reserves where there were no human footprints.

My friends in the Alliance and the government have missed this point. Activity by itself creates problems. We have seen it on land. We have seen it when we run a road through a national park or when we allow some incursion by forestry and mining companies. The same thing will happen if we do not prohibit manufacturing, industrial and commercial types of activities in these areas. The bill would not prohibit that.

I draw the attention of the House to a statement published by 161 leading marine scientists and experts on marine ecosystems. All signatories to the statement hold Ph.D. degrees and are employed in neutral settings. They are not employed by government, in industrial settings or involved in commercial activity. The only thing they were concerned about was the preservation of the natural environment in marine reserves.

The statement gives us some guidelines and targets to shoot at in what we should be doing with this type of legislation. It details some of the things we have learned by looking around the world at reserves elsewhere and what they have accomplished.

I will go through a few of those points. Reserves elsewhere have resulted in long lasting and rapid increases in the abundance, diversity and productivity of marine organisms. What they found when they did their research in the reserves was a decrease in mortality, a decrease in habitat destruction and an indirect positive effect on the ecosystem.

The statement showed there was a substantial reduction in the probability of extinction for marine species worldwide. I go back to some of the comments we heard from the Alliance. I do not know how we can put a dollar price on the extinction of a species. It is the wrong analysis and just does not work. A good deal of the positive effects the member was alluding to are not accurate in the sense that a good deal of those dollars do not end up in the communities. A great deal of those dollars goes offshore.

Let me go back to some of the other things the marine scientists found as they looked at reserves around the world. They said the size of the reserve was important but even small reserves were able to produce positive effects on the environment.

One of the major points brought out in the published statement was the importance of full protection. A major flaw in the bill is that full protection is not there. It is said that it requires adequate enforcement and public involvement. The study concluded that marine conservation areas, which is what the government is talking about, do not provide the same benefits as reserves because full protection is not there.

There was another interesting point made about adjacent areas from the results of the survey and studies that had been done. The study referred to the spillover effect into adjacent oceans beside reserves.

The same type of result was seen. The size and the abundance of species increased in the adjacent areas. Similar results were found if one went beyond the immediate adjacent areas referred to as buffer zones and into the general area called the regional area. The population of the species in that area was replenished to significant degrees even in a widely dispersed area.

Another part of the statement which the scientists tried to draw to the attention of the government when the bill was put forward was the importance of networks. We have seen the need for viable biodiversity on land and the need for the exchange that has to occur between species. It is important to look at the creation of a network of parks so that species can move back and forth. The bill before us does not address that.

Some conclusions were drawn and I would like to cover a few of them. I want to go back to the importance of the reserves and protected conservation areas. Using that type of analysis and approach is simply not sufficient. It does not accomplish the goals. If we had followed that process with our land parks in Canada a good deal of them would not be viable today. We will see the same thing happen in marine conservation areas if we follow the methodology proposed in the bill.

Scientists raised the importance of a dedicated program to monitor and evaluate both the impact within the reserve area and outside its boundary so we could see if it was having the same effect in our territorial waters as it had elsewhere in the world.

We also talked about the importance of the reserves acting as a benchmark. What we would be doing, and this goes back to scientific research in these areas, is that we would be using the reserves to compare what was happening in the rest of the seas and oceans adjacent to our boundaries. We would be able to say what we have been able to do by building this reserve and that it is not working out for the rest of the oceans. We could be asked why and perhaps do something to preserve species elsewhere.

Again I go back to the point about the networks. Their argument was very strong that without them and by isolating the reserves to one or two it simply would not be sufficient. We would lose the biodiversity we require.

I will now turn to some of the specific points missing in the bill. I will start by making a comment on some of the speeches given by members of the governing party. Two or three of them alluded to the fact that this was not an environmental bill, that it was not about the environment. I think they used that kind of terminology. That is very true. They were being honest and accurate in their appraisal of what the bill was about, because it is certainly not about protecting the environment. It does not do that.

I moved an amendment to the bill that would incorporate ecological integrity into the analysis whenever we were looking at developing one of these areas. It was not allowed by the governing party, which again reflects its attitude toward the bill.

I am not really sure what it is trying to do with it. I might suggest that it is mostly a charade or a bit of a farce in that it is putting forth to the country that it is dealing with the problem, that it has a concern about the environment and offshore waters, that this is what it is doing about it and that this will take care of it. That is not being honest.

I also point out some specific additional protections. Unlike my friends from the Alliance, I do not want to take out clause 13. I would like to put some more protections into the bill. I will go through a few of them.

Let me deal with some of the ones we proposed. One is at the top of my list because of what is currently happening off the east coast of Canada, in particular in the maritimes, and what has happened over the last few years. Specifically some major research has been done this summer about deep sea cold water coral that has been, I almost have to say, discovered.

For a long time there was belief within the scientific community that little or perhaps no coral existed in those cold waters, as opposed to what is found in southern climes where there are very large coral reefs. In fact they have been assessed and this summer in particular major research was done on them.

In fact submersibles went down quite deep and brought back pictures. Sadly the research showed big gaps in the coral reef. It was just all gone.

In their industrial operations deep sea trawlers were coming through and literally ripping the coral off the seabed as they did their dragging. This was seen repeatedly and researchers were able to demonstrate it in videos and photographs they took this summer.

Our party had sought an amendment to the bill that would prohibit this type of activity in these types of conservation areas. The amendment was defeated by the government. This type of trawling and dragging will be a permitted activity within the areas when we proceed to set them up. The destruction of coral within the areas will continue.

I will make one more point to set this in some kind of context. The coral has been assessed at being between 2,000 and 3,000 years old. It is only two to three feet high but it is 2,000 to 3,000 years old. We need only imagine what will happen to it if we continue to allow this kind of trawling and dredging.

We also sought amendments that would prohibit other activities. I recognize that not much time is left but I will touch on those.

Although the bill would prohibit the exploration and trapping of oil and mining deposits it would not prohibit oil or gas pipelines through these areas. We must appreciate the impact that kind of activity would have. We must appreciate what the construction of an oil or gas pipeline through a conservation area like this or, it is hoped, someday a reserve like this, would do to the ecosystem.

It is not a prohibited activity. It can be allowed at any time. There is no prohibition against the use of blasting or the detonation of explosives. A fair amount of it goes on during subsurface exploration for oil, gas and minerals.

The use of blasting equipment is particularly damaging to all species, whales, et cetera, which use natural sonar to guide them. It drives them out of the area. It literally destroys their habitat because they can no longer function in the area and they leave. It is total destruction.

This goes back to what my colleague from the Alliance said about the footprint. He can talk all he wants about the technology the oil and gas industry has developed. There is some accuracy to that. It is a much safer industry than it was 10 or 20 years ago. However the reality is that it still uses these types of devices in the exploration phase. This has an impact on the ecosystem and some species that is not minimal but major. It drives them out of the area.

There are few provisions in the bill to prohibit the depositing of foreign substances into these areas, although there are some. However there is a clause that would allow the government to waive any prohibition in that regard. It does not take much imagination to think of the impact if we began to dump sludge and a number of other items into these areas.

In conclusion I will go back to the commencement. There was an opportunity here on the part of the government to do something meaningful to protect our offshore ecosystems. By what it does not incorporate in terms of ecological integrity or prohibit in terms of activities in these zones the bill is clearly a missed opportunity, one the country will pay for during the next number of generations.

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to share my time because it will produce some additional points on the debate.

I must admit I was driven to speak to this matter because of the member from the Bloc who spoke earlier. On personal and professional levels, I have had a great deal of experience in dealing with section 43 and the whole issue of discipline and child abuse. I want to say to the House that if we go back in history and look at where this came from, it is the spare the rod, spoil the child theory. It came out of Roman law, even before Julius Caesar.

As my friend from Vancouver has said, it was incorporated into the English common law. It adopted the same type of theory which at that time allowed for the intentional physical application of force to another individual, to put it in a technical lawyerly way. It allowed men to beat their spouses, their servants and their children. My friend from the coalition raised the point that this section is 100 years old and maybe it is time to take another look at it.

The section was brought in at that time because of the very serious abuse that was going on. There were no restrictions on that abuse. Until the end of the last century, one could literally get away with the murder of one's children in the common law system. We badly needed the section.

I am suggesting that today, a century later, we are at one of those milestones in our development as a human race. I do believe the human race does evolve and develop. We are at one of those periods as a society when we have to look with experience at section 43 and how we treat our children and say that we have evolved. It is time to say to parents that no matter what their religious persuasions are, no matter what their philosophical underpinnings are as to how they raise their children, they no longer can apply intentional physical force to their children. We have evolved as a society to the stage where we can deal with our children and raise them as good citizens of Canada and of the world without the use of intentional physical force.

We heard the argument from the member from the coalition of what to do in a situation where they are out of control. We are not applying physical force to stop them. We are applying restraints but we are not there to punish them with the use of physical force. There are ways of doing that in the existing criminal law system. In several ways it allows us to do that without using section 43. That argument does not amount to a valid advocacy position in terms of retaining section 43.

We need to look at the experience of section 43. My colleague from Vancouver referred to a couple of cases. I have to say to her that those cases were mild. I practised in this area fairly extensively earlier in my career. I think of some of the cases that I reviewed and was involved in where section 43 was used to defend people who by any standards were abusive. That is why it is important that the bill go for further review, discussion and debate. If those cases came forward and we looked at the way the section has been applied at various times, and not all times by any means, to defend people and justify their conduct successfully, I believe the House would be shocked.

[The Environment, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister last week was very clear that we were going to go ahead with Kyoto. There were no restrictions on that.

This week the Minister of the Environment is in Marrakesh saying just the opposite: do these things or we are not signing it. Whose talking for Canada? The Prime Minister or the Minister of the Environment.

[The Environment, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, with only a few hours left in the climate change negotiations in Marrakesh, it has been reported that the Canadian delegation, headed by our environment minister, is threatening to jeopardize any chance of reaching an agreement.

Although we now have an agreement on legally binding enforcement mechanisms, that is in spite of Canada's position in opposition, now our delegation is bickering over minor details that could derail the negotiations.

Why is Canada dragging its feet and thwarting efforts by the whole international community to move forward on the Kyoto protocol?

[The Environment, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, next week Canada will be hosting 180 countries at a crucial meeting on the convention on biological diversity, a treaty aimed to protect ecosystems, including ancient forests and endangered species.

It is ironic that at the same time Canada is hosting this convention it is in the process of passing legislation that is in violation of that very treaty. When Canada signed the convention in 1992 it promised to protect species and their habitat, but the current endangered species legislation proposed by the Liberal government fails to do that. The species at risk bill currently before the House permits habitat to be destroyed.

Canada will be in violation of the convention on biological diversity if Bill C-5 becomes law as drafted. This is yet another sad example of the Liberal government's continued failure to live up to its international commitments on the environment. It is an embarrassment to all Canadians.

[The Environment, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. At Bonn this summer, Canada committed to support legally binding consequences for non-compliance with the Kyoto protocol requirements. At Marrakesh this week, Canada appears to be vacillating on this commitment.

The Deputy Prime Minister was in Bonn this summer when that commitment was made. Could he tell the House whether we will stick with that commitment or will we change it?