Peter MacKay

[Child Pornography, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the PC/DR coalition calls on the Minister of Justice to act today. The recent decision of the B.C. supreme court in the Robin Sharpe case has outraged Canadians and children's rights groups across the country.

According to child advocates and sexual abuse investigators this decision makes sexually explicit stories about children legal in Canada and will only encourage and protect sexual predators.

We live in an information age where pornographic material which is offensive and harmful to people in society is increasingly finding its way into the general public. It is incumbent upon parliament to assure the protection of children. The government must clearly define the strict legal parameters of child pornography. The Minister of Justice should begin hearings immediately.

I call on the government to implement an Internet safety education program for children, increase funding for training of frontline police officers in tracking pornography and revamp the anti-porn laws to protect our most valuable asset, our children.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the previous speaker for his remarks.

In going through Bill C-15B, it is important to keep in context how the legislation came about. It originally was before the House in the form of what is called an omnibus bill. There were a number of very complex and unrelated subjects that found themselves in the bill which caused a great deal of consternation I think for many members of parliament. It is a usual tactic that the government has employed to have its way, that is to essentially include a number of issues with which most if not all members agree and couple them with other pieces of legislation that the government would like to slide in, putting members of parliament in the uncomfortable position of voting against things of which they actually are in favour.

The strategical tactics unfortunately have blurred much of the merit of this particular bill. However the former minister of justice did climb down from her lofty position and agreed to some extent to split off parts of the bill to allow members to vote more freely and more in line with the wishes of their constituents and their own comfort levels.

We have before us a bill with a number of important amendments, which I would hope the government would consider, that would improve and in fact very much ameliorate the ability of the legislation to address the principle issue, and that is: helping to eradicate and give our law enforcement officials greater ability to enforce laws which are meant to curtail cruelty to animals.

We in the coalition are very supportive of any initiative that will bring about legislation dealing with crimes against animals. This legislation very much puts forward the spirit that we need to punish those who intentionally abuse or neglect animals. Cruelty to animals is an issue that has received significant public attention of late. In recent years psychologists have drawn clear parallels between a child's cruelty to animals and subsequent cruelty toward human beings in his or her adult life as one element to take into consideration.

We support as well the government's decision to put forward an ability for judges to remove barriers, to heighten the sentences and heighten the degree of deterrence that should emerge from cases where there is clear-cut, proven on evidence cases of animal abuse.

We do not, I hasten to add, adhere to the government's position in the legislation that to achieve the deterrents and to achieve the heightened degree of accountability, the government must remove the criminal code provisions dealing with animals from the property section of the code.

The proprietary aspects of animal abuse have always been very important in the prosecution of animal cruelty cases. Moving the animal cruelty provisions out of part XI of the criminal code removes the protection of legitimate based businesses that relate to animals and animal husbandry. By virtue of taking that section out of section 429(2) of the criminal code, this important ability to protect oneself by virtue of the law is removed. Let us be very clear about that.

The current section in the property law allows for legal justification, or excuse or colour of right to be claimed by a person who might be charged. Therefore it affords legal protection for acts which have always been seen as legitimate and outside the gamut of animal cruelty and always based upon the evidence. It is inappropriate and misleading in a malicious way to suggest that somehow removing these sections will protect animals any further than it currently does.

It currently is illegal to perpetrate any sort of cruelty against animals. The problem has been in the prosecution of these offences and further in the ability of the police to lay charges. That also ties very much into the resource allocation currently available for police in the country. Removing the cruelty to animals provisions from this section is of particular concern to hunters, trappers, farmers and to researchers. There is an important element in the use of animals for genetic research. People like John and Jessie Davidson would be the first to say that genetic research is something that has to be given a higher priority by the Parliament of Canada and the people of Canada.

These legitimate individuals who work and depend on animals for their livelihood have expressed very clearly to the government their concerns. They came before a committee. There was extensive study of this issue. Everything the bill seeks to achieve could be achieved by bringing about the amendments but leaving the current sections in the property section of the criminal code. Everything that is sought to be accomplished could be done so in that fashion.

We share the concerns of many Canadians, though, who have spoken about the definition of an animal. Any animal that has the capacity to feel pain does encompass in a large way any sort of cruelty that might be perpetrated. Yet through this definition, the government is putting at risk many activities that currently occur. We have heard examples of those. A farmer who puts a noose around an animal's neck to lead it to pasture or to pull it out of danger could potentially be charged.

We have heard ludicrous examples, such as putting a worm on a hook or boiling a live lobster. Potentially, if taken to the extreme, these types of activities could result in prosecutions. The sad reality of that is that the cost that would be expended and the delay in following through with these types of prosecutions, whether they be brought about by the crown or private prosecutions which currently can occur, would bankrupt and put out of business a lot of individuals who currently rely on animals for their livelihood.

Even the intentional act of stepping on a spider was one example that was given as cruelty to an animal.

My comments are in no way an attempt to make light of a serious situation but to point out that this type of law is very dangerous and should not be proceeded with in this fashion. This law could place fishermen, farmers, hunters, trappers, furriers or any individual that associates with animals at risk of frivolous prosecution and those who espouse radical views about animal protection.

The ensuing lawsuits could paralyze and bankrupt some businesses. It is well intended and there are many individuals who are well intended in their efforts to protect animals, but the reality is the horrific cases of animal abuse are currently illegal. It is a matter of enabling our system further to resource and through attention and priorizing the prosecutions for these types of offences. We support strengthening the criminal code and provisions dealing with animals and many of the improvements that are envisioned by the bill. This punishment and resource question is where the problem lies.

The minister did at least realize the carelessness that occurred in the drafting of the original bill, Bill C-17, and she was careful to now inject the word “wilful” with respect to cruelty and unnecessary pain being perpetrated in the drafting of this new bill.

Regrettably, the former minister did not see the need to keep the animal cruelty sections within the property sections of the criminal code. Thus, this improved legislation would not provide the adequate protection with which the majority of animal business people would be concerned. For that reason, sadly we are unable to support the bill.

We believe the legislation is needed and that further legislation is needed to prevent needless animal pain and suffering. An example that comes to mind is the case that many of us were transfixed on a few years ago when we heard about a Rottweiler dog that was dragged on a chain behind a pick-up truck. There was a case very recently in Kingston that was reported in the Kingston Whig-Standard of horrible abuse to a cat named Solitaire that was bloodied and battered. These type of cases are extremely offensive to the sensibilities of most Canadians.

The traditional practices of hunting, fishing and farming do not fit into the category of mean spirited violence, yet they could very much be caught up by virtue of these changes.

It is imperative that animal cruelty legislation be clearly designated to target those who would engage in brutal, deliberate acts against animals. Just as the other parts of this legislation which deal with firearms legislation, it is fine to try to redefine what the legislation does, yet we know it has been a complete and utter failure. The cost is prohibitive. The intent is such that individuals will not voluntarily participate.

For those reasons, and for reasons which I would like to elaborate on but due to limitations of time I cannot, our coalition cannot support the bill. We would be hopeful that the government would be willing to accept the amendments which would take away those sections which very much undermine the spirit and intent of the bill.

[Passing of the Queen Mother, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and with humility offer my support to the sentiments expressed in the motion currently before the House. I very much associate my remarks with the poignant and insightful sentiments expressed by previous speakers.

The people of Nova Scotia and of Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough share with all Canadians and do indeed lament the death of Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Coming as it does so soon after the death of Princess Margaret, there is added reason to express our genuine and deep sorrow for the Queen.

As well, as the Queen herself has said, there is comfort to be taken from a long life lived to the full. That the Queen Mother continued to enjoy her life to the full until its end is also cause for celebration. That the Queen Mother set a shining example of public duty throughout her life is equally cause for celebration. That the Queen Mother chose to help us preserve our Scottish heritage is cause for celebration. That the Queen Mother kept faith with those who gave their lives in war is cause for celebration. Her unwavering support for British, Canadian and allied forces in times of war and peace is a testament to her resolve and regal human nature.

Eighty-five years ago today Canadian troops were engaged in a battle at Vimy Ridge. Eighty-five years ago Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, having lost her bother in the bloodbath of Flanders, was caring for casualties of war in her home which had been turned into a hospital. As a young teenager born to a life of entitlement, she chose duty and responsibility. That is cause for celebration.

Above all, the Queen Mother and His late Majesty, King George, raised a daughter who reigned within our constitution and laws for half a century. This is cause for celebration.

It is for those reasons that we express our sorrow to our Queen and her family who have lost a mother, a grandmother and a great-grandmother. We lament the conclusion of this magnificent life.

Tomorrow, after the captains and the kings depart, when the crown that adorned her coffin is returned to the jewel house, there will remain a human ache in the heart of a daughter who has lost within a few weeks both a sister and a mother.

While some may not readily identify with the jewels and the pageantry, all of us have known or can anticipate the feeling of loss of a parent, and the poignant sight of a wreath of white roses inscribed “In loving memory, Lillibet”.

Her Majesty should know that here in the Queen's Canadian parliament there is great sympathy and great gratitude.

[Fisheries, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the previous speaker and all speakers tonight on this most important issue.

One of the most important things that I heard from the hon. member who just sat down was that this is not a partisan issue. That sentiment has been echoed around the Chamber. Yet we have heard that this particular issue of overfishing and the plight of the east coast, and to a large extent the west coast of Canada, that our fishermen are currently experiencing has been with us for literally a generation.

The problem of overfishing has paralyzed and crippled many communities throughout the country. If we collectively in this Chamber were going to do something about it, now is the time to do so. Otherwise we are all just a bunch of fictitious Don Quixotes who are somehow tilting after windmills. We are talking and putting forward some great rhetoric and some great ideas but we must actually do something about it.

The person who is most capable and charged with doing something about it is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I would say his second in command in this particular issue has to be the Minister for International Trade, the softwood lumber man. However, we heard a lot of discussion about how we do it and what we should be doing but to date the government has not been able to deliver.

The incident that brought us to this point today, much in part due to the efforts of the hon. member for St. John's West, was the issue with the Russian trawler, the Olga , polluting Canadian waters. That was the offence that led to its capture, yet we know now it was actually in the process of once again raping our natural resource and taking tonnes of mature breeding cod from Canadian waters. Now we can talk about putting the blocks to the Faroese and talk tough.

We have seen instances in the past where we did the same things. Mr. Tobin did a wonderful job exploiting his virtues as minister of fisheries. For what? Here we are five, six years later facing the same problem.

We know that there were 26 reported incidents in the past year. This is just the tangible figure of those who were apprehended. The reality is it is probably double that. While the Olga was arrested for pollution there was another ship that turned tail and ran. Suffice it to say that ship was engaging in the same activity.

It will be interesting to see what happens as a result. Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the government up to the task of actually doing something about it?

I, like previous speakers, commend the members of the fisheries committee who have undertaken a very indepth study of the issue. My colleague from Cumberland--Colchester mentioned this as well, that most importantly they have allowed the stakeholders to have a forum, to come forward and speak with knowledge, experience and tangible proof and evidence of what has been happening. The members of the committee are to be commended. Yet it will all be for naught unless something happens, unless the federal government is prepared to make a strong intervention.

What should that intervention be? One route to follow is obvious. It is the same route that we pursued with softwood lumber in previous disputes that we were engaged in. The potato wart was another incident where through neglect, inaction, and a lily-hearted response we waited at the peril of those who make a living from the land with potatoes. With respect to the fisheries we have waited at great cost to that industry.

One of the issues that was brought to my attention that is most interesting in a legal sense deals with illegal fishing on the continental shelf.

My colleagues, particularly from Newfoundland, would know that on the continental shelf there is jurisdiction that goes beyond the 200 mile limit, that extends to the seabed and what is found directly on the seabed. I am talking in particular about sedentary species such as clams, crabs, scallops and other species such as sea urchins.

If trawlers dragging steel doors and apparatus that rip, tear and take these species off the ocean floor are illegally fishing and if Canada has jurisdiction over that property, why can we not launch an action in international court? Why can we not go to the United Nations as we have in the past and make a legal challenge on what is taking place? Why can the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade not launch that particular aggressive action?

My friend from New Brunswick spoke of Canada's need to flex its muscles, exert its control over its proprietary interest and take them on at the UN. This is what has to happen. If we want enforcement we have to be prepared to act. If we want to see something some change, we have to be prepared to take a stance. We cannot continue this lily-livered approach with respect to overfishing. That is one area in which there is a need and a direct call. An alarm bell is going off for the government to respond.

I want to turn my attention to an issue that is of great concern to myself and many in Nova Scotia and many around the country. What is taking place in the historic fishing town of Canso is not a local issue. Canso is in peril. The scenario that is playing out now in the village of Canso is indicative and a perfect example of what has happened in Burgeo and Trepassey and many communities on the east coast.

It is a time for action but it is also a time for compassion from the government. It is a time for understanding for the human impact of what is happening in a town like Canso. There is a breakfast program to feed hungry children because their parents do not have work in the local plant. The only restaurant in town has closed like many businesses before it. If there is going to be a response that demonstrates that compassion, it will have to include other departments. It will not be solved simply by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans allotting quota, be it quota for redfish, shrimp, crab, or opening seasons early or extending seasons. There has to be some action.

To date there has been little forthcoming even to give people something to which they can cling. There is a timeline that is looming. I would suggest there is a very real timeline when the school year ends. Parents will then have to make the decision as to whether they will relocate their families and look elsewhere for work. The sad reality of that scenario playing out is many of these families are already teetering on the brink of bankruptcy or beyond. They do not have the financial means even to relocate their families. They will be totally reliant on social welfare.

There is not, short of losing one's health, a more demeaning place to find oneself in this life, being totally reliant on the government and on the goodwill of taxpayers to survive. That is not where people in Atlantic Canada want to be. It is not where the people of Canso want to be. My friend from Musquodoboit Valley knows that.

There are people in Guysborough county who are in just as dire straits as the people of Newfoundland. Outport Newfoundland has the same scenario that has been playing out now for over a decade, a decade that has seen out migration of gigantic proportions that have left towns literally desolate with abandoned houses, schools closed and hospitals packed up.

This a very real emergency. I along with other members commend you, Mr. Speaker, and respect you for recognizing that and giving the nation an opportunity to rivet its attention upon this very real problem

There will have to be a compromise for towns like Canso that would involve programs under ACOA or programs under HRDC that would allow for an attempt to bring some other form of industry to the area, whether it be call centres or some other form of industrial development. However that should not be a compromise that involves one or the other. That is not to say that because of these other approaches, we should abandon attempts to revitalize the fishery.

That is not what the people of Canso want. This is a town that is coming up on its 400th anniversary of fishing from that location. To find a solution, these other departments may be part of that but this is not to say that we should abandon or in any way denigrate the efforts to revitalize the fishery.

In the town of Canso there is a very famous songwriter who has immortalized some of the plight of people in Atlantic Canada, not just Canso, because it is certainly not particular to only Canso. Stan Rogers immortalized in song much of the sentiment that people feel. One song in particular, Make and Break Harbour , and I am not going to sign a rendition of it, does in fact lament the trials and tribulations of people in Guysborough county. One line speaks about “foreign trawlers go by with long seeing eyes taking all where we seldom take any”.

That type of feeling has been there for a generation. It is not the long suffering people of Canso, or Mulgrave, or Trepassey or other Atlantic villages that are taking that quota and taking that resource from the sea to such an extent where plants are closing and where people are out of work. It is foreign trawlers.

The most recent example was the Russians or the Faroese. However the Spanish, the French, the Portuguese and other countries, Iceland and Greenland, are still coming into our waters and taking that resource. It is simply unacceptable. The knowledge is there. It is as if we have seen the crime and yet we have chosen not to react, not to lay a charge, not to go forward and bring these people to justice.

It absolutely flouts our sense of what is right and wrong. When something is happening and we choose to do nothing we are complicit. We are a part of the problem.

Here in this historic Chamber, in this debate, as in times previous, we have to go beyond the rhetoric. We have to go beyond simply talking about it. It will take a concerted effort on the part of many departments, but in particular the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Foreign Affairs, to send that message.

One of the most telling statistics that we heard was that there were enough fish caught that were under moratorium, fish that were not to be taken from the ocean, to provide thousands of jobs to Atlantic Canada, enough to keep a plant like the Seafreez plant in Canso running seven days a week, 365 days a year. Instead we have seen that town slip to the point where its very existence is in question and is in peril.

The mayor of the town, Frank Fraser, is calling upon all political leaders in the province of Nova Scotia and federal departments to come to Canso to offer solutions and to take part in efforts to find some way to turn things around.

When it comes to looking for solutions, this where again sadly the minister of fisheries has let down the town of Canso. When Canso requested an opportunity to go into 30 for redfish and take quota from that zone, there were other options on the table and those were not assessed or certainly not responded to in the letter that it received.

They were left with this feeling of being completely blanked and completely ignored. At a town meeting just a week ago, the very able representative of the Canso Trawlermen's Association, Pat Fougere, addressed a crowd of over 300 in a small fire hall and he spoke of this problem. In specific reference to the financial value of the fishery in Atlantic Canada, he stated “People seem to forget that the seafood industry is worth more now than ever with respect to the Nova Scotia economy. Last year the value of exported seafood in our province was worth more than $1 billion”.

We can look to natural gas, we can look to the movie industry and all sorts of new and exciting ventures that are taking place in our province of Nova Scotia, but the fishery if managed properly, if controlled and if there was a concerted effort, we would ensure that we could continue to take our fair share from the ocean. We would ensure that those who are overfishing are rebutted and refuted in their efforts to continue to rape this natural resource. Because it is the overutilization of species by foreigners, not by Canadians, that has led to these dire straits, this moratorium and this risk of complete extinction of some species. It is not Canadian fishers.

My colleague opposite, the previous speaker, mentioned that Canadians have to partake actively in the preservation of the fishery. They have to take part in all efforts to ensure that overfishing is not continued, but it is not Canadian fishers who are doing this. We want to be able to create new Canadian exports from the available stocks. We want to ensure that there is an equal distribution of quota among provinces.

Sadly, one of the things that we have seen occur is that the poorest provinces in Canada are pitted against one another. We have Newfoundland and Labrador taking issue with quota being allocated to Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island. We have New Brunswick fighting with Nova Scotia. This is what gets the government off the proverbial hook. By not having a concentrated effort, by not having all of the parties, the stakeholders and those interested in preserving the fishery ensuring its survival, the divide and conquer sentiment creeps in.

We are not always looking for an increase in quota, but rather a piece of the quota. Sometimes it is not harvested. What is the long term plan that is coming from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? It does not seem to be clear. It does not seem to be clearly enunciated, that is for certain. Is it acceptable that foreign fleets are continually taking 80% or more of the total allowable catch of species like redfish? It is totally unacceptable. It is unacceptable that foreign trawlers are allowed to come into the waters and sail away with that fish, often to process it in other countries when it could be processed in our country.

There are other areas that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could look to: developmental slope crab, for example, and looking at other species, experimental species that currently trawlermen and fishermen like those from the town of Canso are currently harvesting. Is there a long term plan? Is there an effort to ensure that the fishery will survive? There are many who are questioning that.

We have the northern shrimp quota. We know that there is a huge biomass and the total allowable catch will be greater than 110,000 metric tonnes. That is 242 million pounds of shrimp. Other provinces have been given an allocation of this northern shrimp. It is Canso's turn. It is fine for Nova Scotia to get their oar in the water.

The historic attachment of Canso and the fact that this fishery in which Canso has always played a part is being denied. Recognizing Canso's history, recognizing its historical attachment to that fishery, I would suggest that it is indicative. It is absolutely necessary that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, led by a Nova Scotia minister for the first time in 80 years, step up and make strong decisions on the part of his community and his department.

It is foolhardy and shortsighted if we do not step up now. The reality is that this dispute has been setting in. We have seen tensions between native fishers and non-native fishers. We have seen instances where foreign trawlers may very well in some cases have come under attack.

It is an opportunity for us to act. I hope the minister has the message. I hope he realizes he has the support of all members. We will be waiting with bated breath to see what the outcome will be.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased as always to have an opportunity to rise and speak to private members' business.

I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary and the Department of Justice line he trotted out, the gobbledegook in support of the government's position to reject statutory release as an amendment to the current Corrections and Conditional Release Act. He gave many of the same criticisms that we have heard in debate in the past in regard to changing the way in which we automatically release prisoners into society by virtue of the statutory release provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

In many ways the hon. parliamentary secretary answered his own criticisms. He spoke of public protection being so engrained in the act, yet it is public protection that is very much at risk as a result. He trotted that out as is often the case when he is questioned.

Mr. Speaker, representing the riding of Kingston and the Islands, where we have one of our largest and most secure facilities in the country, the Kingston maximum security prison, you are well aware that by virtue of this legislation, subject to very few restrictions prisoners are automatically given the keys to their prison cell by virtue of just doing their time. Therefore, I would suggest, prisoners have no incentive to rehabilitate and reform themselves. They have no incentive to partake of prison programs. There is no incentive even to behave, which is what I think is most crucial. There is no encouragement to dissuade and deter prisoners while they are doing time. In instances where prisoners find themselves in the Kingston pen doing time for the most serious and heinous offences, such as sexual assault, murder, invasion of a person's property and person, by virtue of statutory release they simply do their time.

The sentiment and the purpose behind having mandatory supervision apply by virtue of the adoption of such a change to the legislation, in essence doing away with statutory or mandatory release and putting in place a system of earned release, which used to exist, let me be quick to add, tells federal inmates and society generally that when persons have been convicted, have availed themselves of due process and appeals and all legal avenues have been exhausted, and they are then incarcerated, they will be encouraged, nay, they will be required to behave and earn early release rather than simply pervert the judge's sentence which in essence says they will serve a set period of time. The parole board, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, allows for that sentence to be undermined and, in many instances, watered down.

This very simple change to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act contemplated in the hon. member's bill, Bill C-252, this very subject matter, was the subject of a discussion that took place in a review at the justice committee. It was alluded to by the parliamentary secretary. I was part of that committee. Many Liberal members on committee at that time were prepared to support those changes. They were prepared to embrace the idea of earned release, earned remission, encouraging individuals to actively pursue programs which would demonstrate that they were rehabilitating themselves and ready to re-enter society instead of simply sitting in their prison cells and, I will be graphic, engaging in incredibly inappropriate activity involving guards, such as throwing feces at them, swearing at them, engaging in fighting and all sorts of other inappropriate activity with other prisoners, thereby posing a real threat to the brave men and women who serve in the correctional system and to other inmates. That is not the way we should be operating our prison system in Canada.

To suggest somehow that we have the most effective correction system, the envy of the world, as the hon. member opposite referred to it, that is not the case. We have a lot of problems to deal with, including the amounts of drugs and inappropriate activity that are still very prevalent in Canada's corrections system. Having a system of earned release would address that. It does not say that the person would not be released early. It does not contemplate that an individual would not be entitled to early release. It says that people have to play by the rules, that they have to behave appropriately and avail themselves of programming which demonstrates that not only are they mentally prepared to go back into society but they are actually taking part in their own rehabilitation.

Therefore this is not the type of legislation that would cause a major shift in the current numbers who would be released. What it would do is put clear restrictions in place for individuals who, while doing time, have demonstrated through their actions that they are not ready to be reintegrated, that they are not prepared to go back into society and behave in an appropriate way, a non-criminal way.

I would suggest that the hon. member, by bringing forward his private member's bill, is following the path of common sense and bringing forward a change to our current Corrections and Conditional Release Act that would do away with this perversion of the sentencing process. It would do away with making it automatic that we use some randomly determined, and in many cases inextricable, formula to decide who is and who is not released from our prisons.

Not only would the merit system proposed by this type of amendment benefit the offenders through engaging them in their own rehabilitation process, it would certainly benefit the guards, the frontline correctional services personnel. Most important, it would give society some indication that the parole board and Corrections and Conditional Release Act was being followed.

As it currently stands, the individual just simply has to show up, and he has to because he is in jail, but that individual has to do nothing. The judge says “ten years in jail” and a person is out in four. That is the way it works today. That is not the type of general and specific deterrence judges speak of every day in courts across the country, and yet that is a word that seems absolutely perverse. It seems that one never wants to hear that word uttered on the other side of the House. Liberal members do not like the philosophy of general deterrence. They do not want to hear about it. They think it should not be part of the system, even though it is there. It is omnipresent every day in courts across the country.

There would be a financial cost, some would suggest, if offenders did not or could not meet the new requirements of release, if they had to be held to a higher standard. Hon. members on the Liberal side would say it would cost too much. What is the cost when somebody is released early and goes out and shoots a police officer or strangles a child or sexually assaults someone? That is the human cost that is intangible, that we cannot even contemplate when prisoners are released prior to demonstrating that they are ready to be back on the street.

No, it is not a perfect system. No, there is no way to predict human behaviour in every instance, but one way to predict human behaviour is to study the previous behaviour that landed somebody in jail in the first place. Judges determine sentences based on the evidence, on the victim impact statements, often on psychiatric evidence, on what they hear in the courtroom, the circumstances and facts of the case. When a judge makes a decision and the correctional system and the parole board conspire to put that person back on the street, it is a very serious and damaging outcome for society.

This simple amendment would ensure that things are tightened up, that those currently in the system would ensure firsthand that individuals would not be back on the street before being ready. Surely this is the most prominent, relevant and important way to protect society. We hear about the protection of society all the time from the solicitor general, the commissioner of corrections and from the RCMP. Let us do something about it and actually make changes that would bring that sentiment to fruition.

Members of the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative Coalition support this initiative. We thank the hon. member for the opportunity to bring this matter back to parliament. The recidivism criteria should always be taken into consideration for those eligible for accelerated parole. One of the most perverse things is that the current youth criminal justice system will bring statutory release, conditional sentences and some of the worst perversions of justice in the adult system to our youth system. That is what we will see happening instead of seeing things going in the opposite direction, the way this private member's bill would move our legislation.

[Criminal Code, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Bloc Quebecois member. She has offered a unique and very important perspective.

She stated in conclusion the importance of not using flags for the purpose of provocation, which I think was a very good point to make. Yet throughout her remarks, the remarks of the mover of the motion and of others present it is quite clear that the sense of pride and symbolism attached to these inanimate objects, these flags, is quite apparent and very much behind the motivation of the mover in bringing forward the motion.

I commend the hon. member for Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant because he is motivated by patriotism and by the desire to safeguard these very important symbols. The flag in particular for a country such as ours is an incredibly important symbol. It is a rallying point. It is a point to which we can refer when we try to encapsulate the entire country.

Just this week the Prime Minister and members paid tribute to the paraolympian athletes. Whether it be in the fields of war or in the athletic exploits of our athletes, the flag allows us to collectively come together under that banner and feel a sense of collective pride.

There is certainly incredible merit in what the hon. member presented. There is merit in sending the very important message that many symbols, and in particular the flag, are not to be desecrated or not to be besmirched.

The history of this flag has been set out. It was presented first to Canadians in 1964 by the government of Lester B. Pearson. Ken Donovan, the assistant parliamentary director for supply for the Government of Canada of the day, had his daughter actually stitch together the very first flag.

I think that would be the making of a good CBC vignette, the vignettes we often see stirring up a sense of pride and historic belonging in the country. The history of the Canadian flag is a very interesting one.

The idea of having a criminal offence attached to the desecration of a flag in particular is one which certainly has merit. However I would direct hon. members to the fact that there are current criminal code provisions. In particular, section 430 of the criminal code speaks to mischief to property which would allow police forces, whether they be RCMP, constabulary or municipal, to lay an offence or a charge if an individual takes a flag and destroys it and it is the property of someone else.

This is the point where there is a bit of a stepping off for me. The fear I have is that there could be, and albeit a somewhat bizarre circumstance, an individual who purchases a flag and decides to destroy it in an inappropriate way. Theoretically by virtue of the bill there is the possibility that the individual could be charged with a criminal offence.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member has crafted the bill in such a way that it deals with monetary fines rather than any form of imprisonment as a sentence that could be meted out. However there is also the serious attachment of a criminal record which in and of itself is very much a deterrent and a denunciation of a particular activity.

I know that his intent in having this criminalized is to send that message, to deter any individual or any like minded individual from destroying a flag.

I was reminded of another scenario that illustrates my point about making this a criminal offence by my colleague from British Columbia who suggested the scenario we saw played out during the Olympics. The Canadian Olympic women's hockey team was playing the American hockey team and rumours abounded that the women from the United States had placed the Canadian flag on the floor of their locker room, had stamped on it and had done various inappropriate things. Theoretically under the bill those members of team U.S.A. could have been charged with a criminal offence.

The extent to which this law could be exploited, I am afraid, in some ways undercuts the serious issue that the hon. member has highlighted here and brought forward.

There is much merit in preserving and protecting the sanctity of our symbols. The Canadian flag is the epitome of a symbol that we want to enhance, embrace and protect and yet, rather than having this criminalized, the debate could be furthered by perhaps having an opportunity to bring it to a committee to look at how we might bring about the effect that the hon. member seeks to have addressed.

This is not in any way to denigrate or to disparage the hon. member's bill. However, by criminalizing the activity there is some fear that the law itself might be trivialized in the way in which it might be interpreted.

If it is about sending a message and about reminding individuals, particularly youth, I am also concerned that the type of activity that is reprehensible and offensive to many is what we have seen very often played out on television during protests where Canadian flags, flags of other countries and flags of Quebec and other provinces might be burned or destroyed. I would far rather see an item, albeit a very important symbolic item, destroyed rather than acts of violence perpetrated.

I ask members to follow the logic here. If this allows individuals to express their disdain, or whatever it is that they are trying to send as a message, by destroying a flag, I would far rather have that occur than for it be played out in some violent act or in some destruction of a building or of an item that has more monetary value, I suppose, than the value of the flag.

I realize that is a dangerous road to go down. I know that the Quebec premier, Mr. Landry, made disparaging remarks about the red rag and the flag of Canada.

Again I want to be very clear in my remarks. I am not suggesting in any way that there is any merit at all in partaking in an activity that is meant to portray antagonism or to somehow enrage the passions of our adversaries by destroying their flag. However, it is a form of expression, albeit reprehensible to most I would suggest, but it has been a form of political expression for many years.

The American example is perhaps the one that is very often pointed to because the Americans cherish their flag as much as any in the world. Americans are perhaps the most fervent in their patriotism symbolized by the stars and stripes and yet they tolerate the desecration of their flag. That is not to say that they in any way like it or that they in any way encourage it, and yet it is there.

I would suggest that the way in which the criminal code is currently drafted there is protection for individual flags. There is protection for the flag of a person who chooses to display it in front of a building or in front of their cottage or their home. If another individual removes that flag, the individual is subject to theft provisions. However, if they do so for the sole purpose of destroying it, current criminal code sections would attach. Mischief to property, under section 430 of the criminal code, particularly, allows for summary offence charges to be laid by the police.

I do commend the hon. member for having brought the bill forward. If in fact there is a willingness on the part of members present to send the bill to committee I would not stand in the way of that. However I would suggest that the bill itself, in its current for, would perhaps not achieve the goals which the hon. member seeks to achieve.

I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to debate this. I think the bill, in and of itself, has achieved much of the merit and much of the goal that he sought to bring forward.

[Privilege, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the suggestion that this issue of the veto has been really put forward as an attempt to lay out some rabbit tracks, so I will not delve into the gaseous emissions from the Newfoundland member.

With respect to the actual report and the relevance of the committee work I think what is important in your ruling on this point, Mr. Speaker, is the ability of the committee to bring forward a negative report, that is, if members of the committee wish to bring forward a negative finding and in order to do so need to expound upon the evidence that would enable them to do so.

This goes to the very root of committees work, its ability to garner evidence that allows it to bring forward a negative report, a dissenting report, other than that which the Liberal dominated majority of the committee may decide upon. That is the crux of the matter here. It is important that you, Mr. Speaker, take that into consideration.

As for the delay, I will not touch upon the Janus faced tears of the official opposition House leader when he suggests that somehow this is an important matter to discuss. Of course it was important for him to delay a supply day motion on behalf of the PC/DR coalition just last week so I will leave that to the Chair.

[Privilege, March 19th, 2002]

This is Canada.

[Business of the House, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the flow of the chaos that was taking place in the last few minutes on this debate, but there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That the vote on Motion No. P-20, under the name of the member for New Brunswick Southwest, that was deferred until the end of government business today be further deferred until Wednesday, March 20 at 3 p.m.

[Request for Emergency Debate, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Chair's acceptance of this emergency debate application and the opportunity again to put before the House and Canadians the dire straits currently felt in Canso, Nova Scotia.

Last Thursday's decision by the fisheries and oceans minister from Nova Scotia to reject the proposal that was submitted by the town of Canso with respect to a division 3O redfish application for quota has had a devastating impact both on their spirits and their ability to re-open the Seafreez plant.

The Seafreez plant is the only major employer in the town of approximately 1,000 people and the surrounding community. I do not want to go over the same material again, but I remind the Chair that this is an issue of utmost urgency for these individuals, not only because of the work but because of the options that are no longer available to them. They have no ability to get the hours necessary to qualify for employment insurance benefits.

Similarly, to put it in historical context, this particular port has been relying on the fishery for over 400 years. The plant has been operating successfully for the past 10 years. Without access to the quota, there is no ability for the plant to open its doors.

It very much leads into and relates to a broader issue and that is one of overfishing on the east coast. I would respectfully submit there is a similar argument to be made on the west coast.

In particular, with respect to overfishing by foreign vessels, there has been much made and there has been much heard in recent days by the fisheries committee that has travelled throughout Canada and which is in Atlantic Canada as we speak. There is the problem or plight of the raping of the fish resource on the east coast.

The community does not have the options that might be available to other parts of Canada. People in the town, both young and old, have been resting all their hopes on and are clinging to the request that was made by the task force, the union, the trawlermen's association and the town supported by the surrounding areas in the county for this proposal.

The socioeconomic impact is enormous. The minister for ACOA has suggested that other industrial development programs and projects that might be coming to fruition in the near future will assist the town of Canso. That should not be an either/or situation. One should not preclude the other. The fisheries industry is vital to the economic survival of Canso.

I respectfully urge the Chair to accept this application. It would allow all members of the House, particularly those from Atlantic Canada, to focus on the issue of overfishing offshore, the economic impact not only of the collapse and moratorium that has been placed on some species, but also the broad ramifications for having taken away the livelihood of people on the east coast who for generations have been dependent on the fishery.

The number of foreclosures on homes and the number of businesses that have closed are real indicators of the grave need for revitalization of the fishery and the need for a concerted attempt and effort by the government and the minister in particular to manage the fisheries properly.