Peter MacKay

[Code of Ethics for Ministers Act, April 17th, 2002]

You have taken it to a new low.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Yes, I believe it is necessary to include a very clear statement in the bill.

I think it is very important for the provinces to know where they stand vis-à-vis the federal government's intention. They need to know whether the government will contribute a certain level and whether they will have the liberty and initiative to control where these programs will go. They also need to know to what degree the federal government will follow that age old practice of attaching conditions upon the level of support and the resources that often follows.

As far as the member's comment about me going elsewhere, I can assure him that it is not likely to happen. However I do think that in this place there is a time for non-partisan debate and an acknowledgment when programs that are presented to us are done with the best interest of Canadians. We sometimes need to be a little more constructive in our criticism.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with this positive announcement today and the bill, I would have to agree with my colleague. I know that the local HRDC office in the riding I represent in Nova Scotia has been very forthcoming in providing programs that allow members of the community to actively participate in the construction of ball diamonds.

I mentioned the recplex in Sherbrooke and other facilities wherein there is a twofold benefit. A job is provided. The individual has the opportunity to feel a sense of pride in the construction of a sporting facility and the facility itself is brought to fruition, is completed wherein it can serve the needs of that community. The person is also left with the sense of ownership having completed a very integral and important part of the community infrastructure.

Yes, I agree with him. I hope the HRDC department will take heed of its opportunity to work in synergy with sports and recreation and with the Department of Health and to continue to provide that type of infrastructure which has such huge benefits, particularly in rural Canada, as my colleague from St. John's has quite correctly pointed out.

We certainly do acknowledge and thank the minister of HRDC for her department's involvement in that positive effort.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of fitting circumstances in the House. Given that you are presiding over the debate I point out that you have long been an advocate of sports and an individual capable in his own right, as is the minister and the hon. member for Bras d'Or--Cape Breton.

We in the House had the great honour today of being graced with the presence of Olympic and Paralympic athletes. I will not make parallels with the fitness levels of the minister or some hon. members of the House. I had the opportunity to serve with the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport on a committee that delved into some of the challenges facing amateur, and to some extent professional, athletes in Canada. I also served with him on the justice committee. I know this is an issue near and dear to his heart. I have also had the opportunity to play hockey against him and have the scars to prove it.

Bill C-54 has at its root the promotion of physical activity and the aspects of health that flow from a healthy and active lifestyle. That is what all hon. members and all Canadians should be focusing on. It is a positive piece of legislation in that regard.

There are more technical elements to the bill. It would replace the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act which was enacted in parliament in 1961, around the same time the Prime Minister and the Sea Kings arrived on the scene.

Bill C-54 would establish a sport dispute resolution centre in Canada. This is important in its own right. It would set up a body with the ability to intervene and act as an arbitrator to avoid protracted, drawn out legal disputes that interfere with and in some cases paralyze activities and organizations that promote sport activities. An independent organization with a mission to provide sport and sport communities with a national alternative dispute resolution would be a positive contribution. It is a positive part of the bill.

We can hearken back to the dark days of Canadian amateur sport where we saw doping in some Olympic events. With great sadness everyone can recall the Ben Johnson affair. Great pride in his accomplishment was dashed at the revelation that doping had entered into his sporting prowess. We can also recall the Dubin inquiry and the lessons learned from that exercise.

The backdrop to some of the accomplishments of sport could be enhanced and improved for future development by virtue of the legislation before us. One element that would come from the dispute resolution centre is accountability. The bill contains mechanisms to encourage reporting, help bring about public understanding and accountability, and enable the auditor general to keep track of funding as a reminder that necessary resources may not be forthcoming. The infrastructure Bill C-54 would be put in place is a positive step forward.

As I said in my opening comments, the objective of Bill C-54 is to promote physical activity. A fundamental element of a healthy lifestyle and well-being is encouraging Canadians to become more engaged and participate. Canadians and many in the House will recall the analogies that used to be made between the average 60 year old Swede and the average 25 or 30 year old Canadian. The ParticipAction ads were meant to promote Canadians getting more involved in community activities. These did not necessarily include organized sport but simple activities such as walking, running, getting out and living a healthy lifestyle, and being more health conscious. They raised public consciousness of the ability of an active lifestyle to enhance quality of life be it through sport or other physical activity.

Bill C-54 is in the same vein. It would go in the same direction. It would encourage Canadians to improve their health by integrating physical activity into their lives each and every day. It would help reduce some of the barriers faced by Canadians that prevent them from pursuing an active lifestyle.

Increased participation in organized sport has as a corollary and added bonus the pursuit of excellence in sport and the early recognition for young people that there is a higher level to which they can aspire. As much as I agree with the commentary about the need to balance our support and resources for high end achievers, the Paralympians and Olympians we saw before us today are heroes to young people. They give them the inspiration to aspire to a greater level of accomplishment.

It is important that we support elite athletes, programs that recognize excellence, and new sports. It was interesting during the Olympics to see sports like snowboarding, skeleton and some of the new winter sports in which Canada could excel and lead the world. Women's participation has come of age in recent years in rugby, hockey and sports that for years were male dominated and associated with men's activities. We are seeing women participate at world class levels. Our women's hockey team is a shining example of that.

Sport activities at grade school, high school and post-secondary school levels are a source of pride particularly for rural communities in places like St. John's, Newfoundland, the maritimes and throughout the country. Quebec has been at the forefront. Its approach in many instances should be the model for the country, just as it has led the way in youth activities and the way it treats young people. The way Quebec interprets federal legislation such as the Young Offenders Act is very beneficial to the people of the province. We could learn a great deal from the way Quebec promotes young people and activities within its boundaries.

Bill C-54 would help build on some of the foundations that already exist in minor sports programs throughout the country. It would build on our capacity to promote and enhance sporting activity. Some of the agreements and arrangements in Bill C-54 would allow the minister, with the approval of the governor in council, to enter into agreements with provinces and territories to provide for payments or contributions in respect of the costs incurred by provinces when undertaking programs to encourage and promote physical activity and sport. With the approval of the governor in council provinces might enter into arrangements with the federal government or foreign states to promote and develop sport.

We are seeing opportunities for unique sporting activities to occur. For example, other countries could send athletes to Canada to participate in exchange programs. We are seeing unique activities in Iqaluit with the aboriginal games. I am encouraged to see the coverage. It allows Canadians to see the unique sporting events that are part of aboriginal culture in the north. That cultural link is a source of pride. It is important to communities. It is important in defining how young people and Canadians see themselves, their place in the world, and their place in the sporting venues and arenas of the world.

Bill C-54 would establish a not for profit corporation called the sport dispute resolution centre. The centre would aim at taking away some of the acrimony that naturally comes from a competitive environment and putting the focus back on the sport. This is a wonderful element of the bill. It would put the emphasis on the athletes and the activity and take away the pettiness and natural acrimony that sometimes results from a competitive environment.

The centre of course is not an agent of Her Majesty, the department, the corporation or the crown within that Financial Administration Act. It is there acting as an independent body. Presumably the appointment process will result in individuals having long connections, long associations and understandings of sports resolutions to act as referees, which again is something I know the Chair has a great deal of understanding about, even though at times referees are accused of turning a blind eye or not necessarily picking up on all of the activities, just as persons might accuse speakers of the House from time to time. It is good to see the Speaker wearing glasses.

The Progressive Conservative Party wholeheartedly supports physical participation. We support the spirit and intent of the bill. It encompasses the message of health and fitness and encourages Canadians of all ages to become more involved.

It was heartwarming to see the efforts made by the Minister of Health in recent months to promote the same idea shared by the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, that Canadians benefit intrinsically from being more active. Intrinsically, the health care system will have corollary benefits from a more healthy and active lifestyle promoted by Canadians.

In the pursuit of a healthier lifestyle, we must keep in mind that there are infrastructure requirements.

Turning to that subject matter for a moment, I want to recognize the extraordinary efforts of the people in Sherbrooke, a small community in my constituency, who, with the assistance of the Government of Canada and the NHL Players' Association which came forward with a significant contribution at a crucial time, built what they call the Sherbrooke recplex, a community rink that now has the ability to promote its minor hockey program and figure skating. The surrounding area is now able to access ice time and participate in a very real way in sporting activities and it has created a greater sense of community for this small village of Sherbrooke.

Similarly, we saw the opening of the Millennium Centre in Antigonish at St. Francis Xavier, a terrific state of the art complex that will help enhance that university's ability to recruit but, more important, to be competitive and to promote the same sort of ideals that we want to see encompassed in this type of legislation.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the upgrade at the New Glasgow Stadium and the hosting of the under 17 world hockey tournament that took place two years ago and some of the worldclass events that have been hosted in northern Nova Scotia, a region which I represent. It is a region, I hasten to add, that has produced some worldclass athletes: Colin White and Jon Sim were both winners of Stanley Cups in the past number of years; Joey MacDonald and Derrick Walser were both recently promoted to the NHL. They follow in the footsteps of Lowell MacDonald and Tiger Mackie and players who came up through the Pictou county and Antigonish--Guysborough county hockey leagues to go on to accomplish great things. That was just in one sport. Our region has produced a number of worldclass athletes who have competed around the world with great pride.

Certainly my region and my province share the hopes and aspirations of all Canadians in promoting this type of bill. It is a good news bill, a bill I know the minister takes great pride in and a bill that promotes some of those very core values that encourage family participation. One only has to go to the ball diamonds, the rinks and the basketball courts to see the number of families who promote and band together around activities that their children and sometimes their parents and grandparents are taking part in.

I know that the direction in which the legislation is headed is one that I think, on certainly a non-partisan level, members of the House of Commons can agree upon. It provides both immediate and long term health benefits. Physically active lifestyles do help combat childhood obesity, a condition that many studies have shown to be on the rise since the early 1980s.

Healthy lifestyles save Canadians massive amounts of dollars in the health care system. It goes without saying that we need to encourage children early on to develop habits of not only healthy activity but healthy diets, healthy lifestyles and a healthy mind set which are achieved through participation in sports.

Mr. Speaker, as a parent I know you must recognize that there are many intrinsic values that serve young people throughout their entire lives when they participate in a sport: fair play, competition, the need for hard work, the need for team work, the need for working together and dealing with both wins and losses. All of these I find are very much a part of the entire sporting experience.

As one hockey dad described it to me, he said that it was sports or courts for a lot of young people. That is the choice that in many instances young people in both inner city and rural environments sometimes are faced with. Sports is an outlet that prevents them from going down a path of a life of crime, a life of drug or alcohol addiction. It is a benefit that has enormous consequences in terms of involvement at an early age and the enhancement of life skills, of the ability of young people to recognize the choices they make and the affiliations they make with others. Travel opportunities often exist for young people who make a commitment to a team or to an individual sport early in life.

The coaches, the trainers, the physiotherapists and those who work as a support system around sports will also be very pleased to see the direction in which the bill brings us. Motivated by the love of sport, as are many Canadians, there is an understanding now that by investing early on, be it in terms of the resources for infrastructure, for programming or for supporting existing sporting activities, there is an incredible exponential payoff later in life and in real dollar terms for the government.

I again congratulate the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport. By committing to this type of legislation and by committing to shaping and improving lives through participation in sports, the dividends from investing early will no doubt pay off and make Canada a better place. As we have seen today, this will provide us with a source of pride and a source of inspiration with programs that can produce worldclass athletes. They will perpetuate this feeling of accomplishment, this motivation for young people who see their heroes win those medals, hoist that cup and win that competition.

I am very pleased to speak in favour of the legislation on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. We look forward to seeing the legislation come to fruition. We look forward for the opportunity of participating in future debates on legislation that can truly be deemed as wonderful and productive legislation for Canada.

[Petitions, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present to the House a petition from citizens of Canso and surrounding areas in Guysborough county, including Little Dover and Fox Harbour, who call upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to recognize that the denial of fish quota to their Canso plant could result in the closure of the only industry in that town.

They call upon the minister to revisit this decision and to come up with new areas of contribution to the economy so that people like Tanya Fougère, a student, and others in that town will be able to restore some economic vigour to the community. I am very pleased and honoured to table this petition in their names.

[Fisheries, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of fisheries has to realize that NAFO is not protecting Canadian fishing industries. Communities in his own province are dying because foreign trawlers continue to devastate fish stocks.

A Russian trawler caught 247 tonnes of undersized redfish, the same species that the minister refused to grant access to Canso and Mulgrave for processing. Not illegal, the minister says, but under NAFO redfish quota is not regulated nor is net size. Talk about catch and release.

How does the minister reconcile the lax rules and regulations of NAFO while ignoring, refusing--

[Olympic and Paralympic Athletes, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House to pay tribute to Canadian Olympians and Paralympians.

Who can forget Captain Cassie Campbell in the women's Olympic victory over the Americans, Mario draped in the Canadian flag surrounded by his victorious countrymen, or Daniel Wesley who won a medal of each colour? I am sure no one will ever forget Sale and Pelletier and the amazing Catriona LeMay Doan. All the medalists, competitors and coaches earned our pride and our admiration.

The sense of unity and purpose that both Paralympians and Olympians give us is immeasurable, but more importantly we congratulate the spirit of those who dedicate their time and effort and all those who represent this great nation of ours on the international stage. Canadian athletes set new standards at both events, winning 15 medals at the Paralympics and 17 at the Olympics.

Today we will debate a new sports act in the House. I believe it is imperative that we find the resources to encourage our youth to become more physically active and perhaps one day be future Olympians. Canadians want to see more arenas, playgrounds and greater access for underprivileged children. Developing the skill it takes to achieve the Olympic dream begins on the playgrounds and rinks outside our homes.

It is with pleasure that we congratulate all the Canadian Olympians with us today.

[Criminal Code, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today. I congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough Centre for bringing this issue to the floor of the House of Commons.

It is an issue of merit and fraught with emotion for many members of parliament and many Canadians. It is an issue that stems very much from our values and great desire to protect and preserve our symbols of national unity and symbols of importance to all Canadians.

The spirit and intent of the bill is to cause Canadians and parliamentarians to engage in an introspection and to talk about the vision for greater protection of our country and the symbols that represent our country. The intent of the bill is to highlight the importance of the growing sense of patriotism that we have in this young nation.

We are sometimes hesitant to engage in patriotism and acts which celebrate our country's accomplishments and place in the world. There are times when we identify with the flag and wrap ourselves in that symbol to the betterment of all and to the betterment of a sense of bringing people together.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party wholeheartedly support the intent of the bill to bolster the flag as a symbol of national unity and to protect that symbol. We support efforts to dissuade those who may engage in efforts and acts to desecrate, destroy and denigrate that great symbol.

I find myself in the somewhat uncomfortable position of agreeing with some of the arguments put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. By criminalizing those acts we would enter into a new realm where one would have to question to some degree the proportionality of the response. Yes we all frown upon those kinds of actions and want to do whatever we can to protect that symbol of Canadian pride and unity. However by invoking the use of the criminal code we would be using a blunt instrument to hammer home the desecration of the flag.

In my opinion it does not merit that type of response. The use of a criminal sanction would result in what I would describe as a further disproportional response. It could hamper a person's ability to partake in the opportunities that exist in Canada and would run against the very grain of the member's intent in preserving the sanctity of the flag.

The argument that has been put forward in the House with regard to freedom of expression does enter into this issue. Sadly, there are some who choose demonstrative acts of aggression toward the flag to make a political statement. Certainly no member of our party or any party in the House would condone those acts.

The reality is that sometimes it is an outlet for individuals to display their aggression, disdain and distaste for government policy or for countries of any origin. Some would suggest that aggression is far better taken out in the form of an act toward a symbol rather than an act toward an individual or a person's property which some would say is of greater monetary value, for example, a person's home or automobile.

Very often we see political demonstrations where a message is being sent through the destruction of a flag. This is not a scene which veterans or athletes or anyone who has donned the flag are pleased to see and who in fact cringe upon those occasions. That is a form of protest that has existed for some period of time.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned the Americans. There are probably many, myself included, who point to the Americans as among the most fervent patriots in the world. Yet they tolerate this act of aggression toward their flag. That action has been taken through their courts and it has been found, although wanting in terms of the act itself, to be within their constitutional boundaries.

It is important to note that section 430 of the criminal code, which deals with mischief to property, currently permits police in some circumstances to charge a person for the desecration and destruction of a flag, particularly if that flag belongs to another person, or an embassy, or an individual or an organization. However It does not preclude somebody from purchasing a flag or owning a flag and destroying it.

We also know that there are occasions when a flag is destroyed by way of a ceremony because the flag has become so faded or ripped that it is destroyed out of a sense of respect rather than a sense of disrespect.

It is somewhat difficult to make this a black and white issue by criminalizing the destruction of a flag in every instance. I note that the wording of the motion, by adding section 56(1) to the code and making it an offence to damage or destroy the flag, also includes the provincial, territorial or national flags. I am glad to see that the member included that because we know that there have often been acts of disrespect, and provocation between provinces. I am speaking specifically of the fleur-de-lys and the occasions where there have been attempts to enrage sentiments among provinces and to bring out the worst of those sentiments by displaying disrespect toward the symbol of a province, and similarly another country.

There would be some perverse irony in that a person might be charged in Canada with destroying an American flag or a flag of another nation if they were permitted to do so in their own country. That would be somewhat incongruous if we were to criminalize that act in our country.

There was mention that in Ireland and Great Britain the current case is that those flags are protected with such criminal sanctions. In the context of the unrest that exists in particular between the people in northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and the acts of aggression that have occurred historically in those countries, I think we know that in those circumstances it was necessary. Perhaps even more so we have to emphasize the intolerance and the symbolism that results from any sort of desecration of the Irish national flag or the flag of Great Britain, the Union Jack. I think it was in the historical context that I would deem a rather extreme step was taken in criminalizing it in those circumstances.

Under section 430, our code permits criminal charges to be laid for mischief against property, which a flag certainly would be, and allows for sanctions which are aimed at general deterrence and specific deterrence for those who engage in that type of act.

Rendering the property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective would certainly fit that definition when it comes to destroying a flag. It would also allow for sanctions when somebody interferes with the lawful use or enjoyment or operation of property. Removing a person's flag from his or her property would allow for criminal sanctions to follow. Obstructs, interferes or interrupts the lawful use enjoyment of said property again would fit that description.

When looking at the overall effect of the bill versus the overall intent, I would have to say that we err on the side of not criminalizing acts of aggression toward the flag. By virtue of having this debate and bringing attention to it, raises the standard and consciousness and the respect and deep esteem that we should have for our symbols, in particular our flag, particularly when we talk, as the previous member did, about the long, deep history felt by veterans in the country and by our Olympic athletes.

Today we will be honoured with the presence of our Olympic and Paralympian athletes in the House of Commons who so proudly displayed that flag, yet there was a very dark incident where the American women's hockey team trampled on the Canadian flag. In that very instance it would have been disproportionate to lay a criminal charge against those individuals.

Yes, it goes against the Olympian model. It goes against everything about fair competition and all that we want to invoke in sport, but a criminal charge would be disproportionate.

While I agree with the intent of the hon. member's bill, I regret that, given certain legal restrictions, we should not pursue it in this fashion.

[Fisheries, April 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been anything but serious or consistent. My supplementary is also to the minister of fisheries.

Recently the Newfoundland ACOA minister said that Ottawa wants to build its partnerships to shape a prosperity agenda for Nova Scotia. Is the minister including Canso in that agenda? All the work toward diversification will have been in vain if the anchor of this town, the Seafreeze plant, does not reopen.

Since the fisheries minister rejected the redfish proposal, will he allocate shrimp quota to Canso and Mulgrave to return jobs, dignity and hope to these hardworking citizens of his home province?

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, that was quite a speech. I thank my colleague for his questions and I would say that four relates to one and two relates to three in the way he has poised them.

The issue of the complexity of the bill is undeniable. It is reminiscent of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. It is also reminiscent of the Income Tax Act. Judges and others working in the courts, including crown, defence and police, will have an incredible challenge before them in trying to sort it out.

I think that in drafting legislation one of the guiding principles of the Department of Justice, which was called the world's worst law firm by the previous minister, really should be try to strip away some of the complexity and make law that is based more on common sense and is more understandable for the general public.

The bill, as the hon. member knows, was the brain eruption of the justice minister of two terms ago, who has the reverse Midas touch. Everything he seems to touch turns to something other than gold. I know that my friends from Manitoba, from Dauphin--Swan River, Brandon and rural parts of their province of Manitoba, understand that Canadians want enforceable legislation, bills that work to protect the public, not to target law-abiding citizens, which is what the Firearms Act does.

In the Progressive Conservative Party, we cannot support any legislation brought forward to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic of a bill that will crash, that will ultimately falter and sink. We need a bill that targets criminal activity. This legislation is not a bill that I could describe in that fashion. Sadly, it is legislation that does not accomplish its goals. It is legislation that creates problems rather than addresses problems.

My friend spoke of the removal of the RCMP element, in essence, the privatization of the legislation, which endangers Canadians' private information. If the information fell into the wrong hands, it would tell persons who wished to access illegal guns where to find them or it would tell individuals who rely on a weapon for protection that the person may or may not have a gun.

The other part he touched on, which is very relevant, is that the frontline police officers will not trust the accuracy of the information. They cannot rely on it. If they receive a call to go to a domestic or other incident, they cannot trust that the information contained in the computer is accurate. Therefore they have to attend every call assuming that there might be a weapon in play, not assuming that there is not because the person has not registered.

To suggest that in regard to having a laser sticker or some instrument of a number recorded and placed into a computer data system, it will save lives, prevent crimes or even improve tracking if the information is not 100% accurate is a fallacy. It is a complete falling down, a complete abdication, on the part of the government in presenting a bill that is so costly. I am privileged to be surrounded by individuals from Manitoba and St. John's, Newfoundland who I think share that same sentiment. This is a bill that will not work. Any effort in Bill C-15B to improve the legislation is similarly doomed.

I hope I have addressed the questions that my friend raised. I agree with him. We in the Progressive Conservative Party do not support the registry system, which has been presented, I would suggest, in a very misleading way. The traducers who came up with the bill clearly did so for reasons that were best described as political rather than practical. The only way that this firearms legislation will ever disappear from the landscape in the country is when the government is voted out of office. That is the sad reality.