John Cummins

[Irving Whale, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on her announcement today. Irving Whale has been a ticking environmental time bomb since it sank in 1970 and another Liberal administration allowed it to remain there.

Nevertheless, the minister should be congratulated for this action. At the same time she should be condemned for her inaction on another issue in the gulf area, namely, the proposed pumping of waste water from Scott Maritimes Limited pulp and paper plant two kilometres into Northumberland Strait.

Nearly 30 years ago area residents were told the treatment system for effluent from the Scott Maritimes mill would result in water suitable for swimming or even drinking. The results today include a dead, stinky lagoon and area fishermen say a mile long area of dead bottom near Powell's Point where no plankton grow and no fish swim.

Nova Scotia's current proposal for remedying this situation includes a $17 million upgrade of the effluent treatment system which it operates, the bypassing of the existing stabilization lagoon and extending the effluent pipeline two kilometres into the Northumberland Strait.

In a letter to you, minister, dated November 8, 1993, to which you have not replied, Mary J. Gorman and Percy Hayne Jr. informed you that fishermen were fed up-

[Kemano Project, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is the opinion of many distinguished scientists that the Kemano completion project has the ability to devastate wild salmon in the Fraser River system.

Currently the effect of this project is being monitored and is under review on the Nechako basin alone by the B.C. Utilities Commission hearings. The Rivers Defence Coalition, a coalition of groups opposed to the project, have expended their resources and are being forced to withdraw from the hearings.

What steps will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans take to ensure that the public interest represented by the Rivers Defence Coalition continues to be heard at the hearings?

[Fisheries, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The enabling authority for the aboriginal fishing strategy will expire this spring. As I understand it cabinet must review the program and then rule on whether to continue or terminate it.

Will the minister tell us when we can expect such a decision, whether the decision will be made in splendid isolation, or will input be sought from those affected by the program?

[Fisheries And Oceans, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference in the Peat Marwick report were: "The goal of the review was to determine whether the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister had respected government travel and hospitality policies, not to excuse their conduct".

1617

Would the minister not agree that to offer an opinion as to the appropriateness of the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister's conduct goes beyond the terms of reference of the audit and beyond the capabilities of the auditor?

[Fisheries And Oceans, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Peat Marwick audit requested by Treasury Board of the expense accounts of the deputy minister of fisheries and oceans and his assistant deputy minister of policy absolves them of any wrongdoing. Yet, as the report acknowledges, they could not seem to manage their expense accounts in a careful and prudent manner.

Would the minister tell the House if the manner in which the deputy and his assistant have managed their expense accounts and have in fact managed taxpayers' dollars is consistent with his expectations for the management of his ministry?

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before I am not a lawyer. My understanding from listening to people here this afternoon who are is that this law will be put in place and somehow or other the courts will interpret the law as it is read here today.

The difficulty I have with this law is that it does not address the problem it purports to address, the problem of people fleeing from police officers when ordered to stop. I do not think it addresses that problem. I think it simply makes it much more difficult for the policeman who has to take action. If that action involves bodily harm or involves the death of an individual, it makes it much more difficult for the police to justify their action.

It is very easy for us to sit here in this very safe environment, read the bill and say that it covers this and that problem and addresses this and that shortcoming. However, that is not where the action is played out. The action is going to be played out in some back alley in the city of Toronto or Montreal or, as I said earlier, in some dark corner of the Fraser River canyon or some place like that. This is where the whole bill falls apart.

We should be offering our police officers more encouragement than this bill currently does.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member. I hold him in high regard and appreciate the sincerity of his comments.

To answer specifically from my point of view, the limits are quite clear. Referring to the events in Montreal and Toronto as I recall them the people involved were ordered by the police to stop and chose not to. That is where the problem lies.

Somewhere society has the idea that when the police order someone to do something, it is all right to try to play cops and robbers and try to get away. That is where the problem lies. I do not know whether it is too much TV or too much publicity for those people trying to get away.

I do not know what the answer is but that is the root of the problem. It is the people who flee. It is not the police officers ordering them to stop. We have to direct our efforts at encouraging people to have more confidence in this country's legal system. Maybe they are fleeing because they have too much confidence in it and know where they are going to end up. That may very well be, but that has to be where our efforts are directed.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be quite brief. I raised the points I wanted to mention while questioning other members.

In preparing for this afternoon's debate I did talk to fisheries officers on the west coast who I thought probably should have been aware of any consultation which had taken place with the government before this bill was brought forward. My questions to them were the first ones they had heard on any change of this nature. Not only did I talk to fisheries officers in the field, I also talked to people with some authority in the department who should have been aware of the changes being talked about.

The question raised by the member for Wild Rose is one which we must keep asking-what is the motivation for this bill? Is the bill there to make law enforcement more effective? Is it there to make the streets safer? Is it there to protect our police officers? Will it make them feel more confident when they go about their duties knowing that the force of law is on their side and that the authorities and their supervisors will back them up when they make the tough decisions they have to? That is where this bill falls down. The bill does not offer police officers, whether they are fisheries officers, city police or the RCMP, the confidence they need.

Police officers in this country are not like members of the Gestapo. They are our neighbours. They are our sons. They are our friends. They are not authoritarian figures by far. They are people committed to public service. Yet they are people who put their lives on the line more often than not. They are people who put themselves into very dangerous situations making sure that Canada is a better country in which to live. That is where this whole bill falls apart. It does not offer these people the protection they should get. It does not offer them the kind of encouragement they need to continue their duties. I find it very disappointing.

It is difficult for us to imagine what it would be like pursuing someone down the dark alleys of one of our major cities or pursuing poachers in the dark of night along the banks of the Fraser River or in some isolated inlet on either the coast of British Columbia or Nova Scotia. It takes a particular kind of courage to do that work day after day. These people need our support and encouragement.

As I suggested earlier, if the government were truly interested in making the streets safer in this country, if it were truly interested in enabling law enforcement people to do the job Canadians expect and want them to do, we would be putting the onus on the criminal to stop. We would make it very difficult for a criminal to say: "I am going to try to get away from this thing". The penalties should be severe for those who do not obey the orders of police officers, whether they are guilty or innocent.

The onus is on us to expect that other members of our society will stop when a police officer asks them to and leave the determination of their guilt or innocence to the courts. That is what it is all about. We as Canadian citizens must recognize the very basic fact of life that the onus is on us to obey authority figures and leave the determination of guilt or innocence to the judicial system which I have a great deal of confidence in.

In conclusion I would like to say again that this law needs some work. We should be offering our police officers the encouragement they need. We should be coming down heavy on the criminal element that wants to escape the lawful requests and demands of the police authorities in this country.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 1994]

I would like some clarification from the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn. He suggests that there is a penalty for fleeing. I would suggest that there is also a penalty for using firearms in the commission of crimes.

I may be wrong and I ask him for clarification, but it seems to me that rather than these laws being enforced rigorously or definitely, quite often these matters are dealt away with in the judicial process: "If you'll do this, I'll do that" so the law in fact has no force in its effect.

I wonder if the member could perhaps clarify that.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn mentioned that police have the same protection as any other member of society under this law. I would suggest to him that the police may have the same protection, but they have more responsibility when it comes to enforcing the law.

I can recall as a youngster that if a policeman said stop, we stopped. That was the rule of the day. Nowadays it seems that if the policeman says stop, the criminal element says catch me if you can. The law will defend them if they say that.

I would suggest to the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn that if the government was interested in justice on this matter that it would increase the penalty for fleeing. In other words, it would try to make it very unattractive for people to flee from the law when they are caught red-handed in crime rather than penalizing police officers and making the police officers jump through a series of hoops to defend themselves if they happen to be attempting to enforce the law.