Peter MacKay

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-3. I am pleased as well that the reconvening of parliament and the gathering of members of parliament back to this place will allow us to continue the debate of the Liberal government's youth criminal justice act, now known as Bill C-3, formerly Bill C-68, which was another poorly put together bill.

The proposed replacement of the current Young Offenders Act is one which has received a great deal of attention, and rightly so, and a great deal of consternation throughout the country. It will be an entirely new piece of legislation that pertains specifically to youth in this country.

Youth justice is certainly a matter of great concern for all Canadians, for the Progressive Conservative Party, the government and all opposition parties. In my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough I hear regularly from people who are affected and who are extremely concerned about the direction in which youth criminal justice is going in this country.

I also find that the concern that is expressed very often by the government has resulted in an extremely lengthy waiting period with respect to the introduction of this legislation. We know that it was throughout many election campaigns a priority that was spelled out in documents. However, it took the government 18 months before first introducing this bill in its original form, Bill C-68. With much fanfare, in March 1999 the bill was finally tabled by the minister of justice. We also know, as is very often the practice, that much of it had been media tested and leaked prior to its introduction here in the House, or I should say its introduction through the press gallery.

Then, on the eve of parliament reconvening this fall, there was a prorogation. This delayed the opening of the House by three weeks and we know that there were huge issues burning in the country at the time: the proposed hostile takeover, the fisheries crisis that is absolutely a tinderbox which is about to explode on the east coast, as well as the refugee crisis. We also know that there are problems within our justice system. It is absolutely shameful that the government again chose to delay dealing with problems which I have mentioned, as well as the introduction of this very necessary legislation.

One would have thought that throughout the summer months of reflection this might have prompted the minister of justice to strengthen or perhaps revise some of the act. This did not happen. There are no sweeping changes in the legislation that appears before us. Bill C-3 is the mirror image of Bill C-68, but for the fact that the justice department did, in fairness, go through the problem of spell-check to correct some of the language so that at least the French and English languages correspond.

We have waited an eternity for Bill C-3, but it is, we are quick to acknowledge in the Conservative Party, an attempt to replace what was a very ineffective and in many instances a very dangerous piece of legislation. I am talking about the former Young Offenders Act. However, this particular bill, I personally feel, will not live up to much of the billing that has been placed before the Canadian public. In response to overwhelming public pressure to toughen up the act the Liberal government has employed a process of smoke and mirrors to give the appearance that this is in fact what is happening.

I say with all honesty that this is not the case. That is not to say that simply toughening up the act is going to address the problems that exist with youth crime in this country. That is not to say that there are not any positive elements in this bill. In fairness, all opposition members and government members who have preceded me in speaking in this debate have indicated that there are indeed some very positive elements in Bill C-3.

These are not new nuances. These are not changes that have not been contemplated in the past. In fact I find it almost ironic that much of what we are talking about in this debate is actually a return to philosophies and methodologies in the criminal justice system that we have used in the past under previous legislation such as the juvenile offenders act, legislation which has come full circle now in terms of how we react to young persons who become involved in criminal activity.

There is certainly one very positive element of this bill that I would be quick to recognize and that is the concept of parental responsibility. This bill attempts to bring adults, and parents specifically, more into the system. One can agree very quickly that this is a necessary element. There has to be a more holistic approach, a family style approach, to the problems that often lead up to and continue to exist when a young person runs afoul of the law.

This degree of accountability, not only for the young person but for the parent, is crucial in addressing youth crime. It is a fair question, I suggest, for a judge to ask a parent in a courtroom in an open fashion, “Where were you when your 14 year old was breaking into your neighbour's house? Why was your child out on a school night under the influence of alcohol or drugs committing a criminal offence? Why is your child acting out in such a violent way?” These are relevant questions, and questions that I feel a parent should be held to account for as well.

The entire issue of the age of accountability is something that is dodged by this particular piece of legislation. I am quick to point out that it is a suggestion that has been certainly echoed by members of the opposition, but it originated in a report that was commissioned by the government itself. This was an idea that was not just floated by opposition members and it is not just an attempt I suggest to try to find fault with the act. This was a recommendation by an expert under the financial auspices of the government.

It raises the hackles on the necks of government members when they hear the suggestion, and they point out that we already have many agencies in place to address youth under the age of 12 who are not encompassed by the old act or the new act, that these agencies are the ones most properly suited to deal with youth in contravention of the law. However, I am very quick to remind the government and the House that the legislation does not bolster the support that is needed in the areas of child welfare and early intervention.

There are an increasing number of youth under the age of 12 who are completely untouched by our criminal justice system. It is the rapid response, I would suggest, that is most important in dealing with crime at an early age, and allowing our criminal justice system to react. This is not a bar on placing children into those agencies. We already know that our justice system works very much hand in glove with those social services, with those agencies. This is not to suggest for a minute that the criminal justice system will be solely responsible for children under the age of 12 who run afoul of the law. It is simply to suggest that we have to have a mechanism that will bring them into the system in a quick and effective way.

Police officers are often faced with an extremely frustrating situation where an 11 or sometimes even a 10 year old—and it seems unthinkable but it does happen on occasion—is involved in a very serious offence perhaps involving a weapon, perhaps involving threats or a violent act. Under the current system and under the system that the new legislation will put in place, police officers are virtually powerless. They can contact the agencies, but they do not have at their discretion the same elements that would exist under the criminal law.

This is one of the many reasons that I have introduced a private member's bill that would do just that. I know other members of the House have some reservations about this, but it is not solely to hammer youth under the age of 12. It is simply to widen the net, to broaden what the act encompasses.

If there are positive elements, and there certainly are positive elements in the act, why would we not want to have those early interventions, those elements that will hopefully focus our attention on the root problems of crime, applied to a broader age group of young people in the country?

There are other sections of the act that I would like to address as well. Bill C-3 certainly does not address the financial responsibilities that are also encompassed by the administration of criminal law in the country, and that is true of the old act. It has been declining since 1984. It has been getting steadily worse when it comes to the federal government's commitment to the provinces and the administration of criminal law in the country. I am not going to broaden that by discussing criminal law generally, but with respect to the administration of the Young Offenders Act, the federal government has completely abrogated its responsibility in holding up its financial end of the deal. That is true in the province of Quebec, Nova Scotia and right across the country.

This is something I know the province of Quebec, in many instances, has focused its attention on. It has in fact initiated more programs and put more provincial funding into it, perhaps at the expense of other programming, because it recognizes the importance of it. The province of Quebec is perhaps a leader in many of the areas of programming that the government envisions will be brought about as a result of changes in the act.

Bill C-3 gives the provinces increased responsibilities; they will have to offer with more programs and become more involved in the administration of this legislation.

For now, there is no new funding in sight from the federal government. A number of experts, including the government's, agree that the age of accountability should be lowered from 12 to 10. This is not designed to punish young people, but to make them accountable to the justice system.

Intervention at the earliest possible juncture is the most effective way to get youth back on track before its too late. The government says that it will do this with the new bill and, to an extent, it does focus its attention on that area of the law. Clause 34, for example, is the medical and psychological report clause to determine if a youth is in fact suffering from some affliction or disorders that need to be treated and not necessarily punished.

This is not a new concept. It is certainly one that the Conservative Party, others in the House and those in the criminal justice system are quick to embrace and recognize. However, we do know that there is a lack of federal commitment to provincial rehabilitative programs and to mental health counselling. This commitment is what are needed. This is where the focus has to be.

What the act does, in simple terms, is to identify the problem as a priority and drop it in the provinces' lap and walk away. That is simply not good enough.

Young females in conflict with the law is a rising problem in the country. There was a very serious case that drew a great deal of attention across the country involving a young woman named Reena Virk in the province of British Columbia. This again is something that is highlighted across the country. Young women are becoming more increasingly involved in the criminal justice system as a result of many of the other social problems that exist.

This is again why I hearken back to earlier comments. If the government, through this legislation and this initiative, wants to focus its attention on the front end problem and on bringing about change that will assist young people to stay out of difficulty with the law, the preventative side of justice, the restorative justice side which is at the end but which puts greater emphasis on personal interaction with victims and those who can truly assist, identify and perhaps cure or treat some of the problems that led to the difficulty in the first place, that is fine. Philosophically, members of the House would agree that that it is the right approach.

However, the government is not putting in place the resources that are necessary. It has identified what it wants to do. It has made a great deal of fanfare and drawn a great deal of attention to itself as having brought this bold new initiative about, yet it is not prepared to pony up and pay for the programming that is going to be necessary. It has increased the responsibilities and the burden that is going to be carried by the provinces, the agencies, the police and the judicial system for those programs that are specifically aimed at addressing the problem. It has walked away because there is not one dollar more that is going to go into this program as a result.

The difficulty itself is a very complex one. Sometimes in this place we suffer from oversimplification in telling people what they want to hear. This is not a problem that is going to go away quickly. As with previous legislation aimed at the criminal justice system, I would suggest that there is going to be a lag time. The true effects of the legislation may take years to actually develop in the country.

Because of the complexity and diversity of the country, it may have a different affect in some provinces. I am focusing specifically on the ability of the provinces themselves to administer the act because we know there is a huge discrepancy in the country currently as to the financial ability of the provinces to provide services to their people.

It only stands to reason that if we increase the provinces' responsibility without increasing the proportionate resources then it will be exacerbated further. The differences that currently exist means that the have not provinces will be further burdened and will fall further behind. This is truly a very broad sweeping problem.

The focus in the Chamber is most often between the province of Quebec and the provinces in English-speaking Canada. I come from a region in Atlantic Canada where we are suffering grave differences between our ability to provide for our people through social services, through criminal justice and through employment than the rest of the country. This will be played out through this legislation as it is with all legislation.

Canadians expected more and they were led to believe that they would get more through the legislation. They were led to believe that there would be a tougher response in certain instances for youth involved in violent acts, acts involving the use of weapons or sexual violation. That is not the case.

The transfer provisions that were touched on by many of the previous speakers are a bit of a ruse in a way. They give the impression that we are taking a young person into the adult court system. This may cause many people to shudder and think, “Oh, my goodness, we are bringing a 14 year old or 15 year old into an adult court where he or she will be treated in a much harsher way”.

The reality is that in many instances the sentences that are handed down at the end of the day are actually less in terms of the time that the person would be incarcerated as a young offender because—and I hate to use this expression because it is somewhat of a misnomer—but truth in sentencing existed under the old Young Offenders Act. That is to say that if young persons were sentenced to 18 months they would serve every day. They would remain in a young offender facility for that full period of incarceration. We know that is not the case in the adult system.

This is not to say for a moment that incarceration is always the way. We know that the programming that is often available is not sufficient. We also know that simply removing a person from society will not fix them. It is often the last resort brought about to protect society when necessary from a person who has exhibited violent, anti-social behaviour.

The concept of simply bringing a person into adult court and saying that it will fix the problem because he or she will be treated in a harsher fashion is not necessarily the truth of what has happened. I believe it is incumbent on the government to be very up front about what the system change will really amount to.

The programming that is available in a youth facility is often the more appropriate one. Often times bringing them into adult court exposes them to this atmosphere that has been discussed, which is that they will learn more sophisticated ways to commit crimes. They may be further victimized in an adult facility. There is an extremely dangerous element to this quick fix type solution that is being proposed.

As has been stated many times, there are elements where this particular legislation has moved in the right direction. I, like all members of the justice committee and of the House, look forward to participating at the committee level and to the changes that may be brought about through that level of participation.

I congratulate the participants who have taken part in the debate, as well as those who participated at the committee with their testimony. I look forward to further following the legislation as it moves through this place.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am the next speaker, so I will ask a brief question. I would address it to my colleague and fellow Nova Scotian. I have listened very closely to his remarks. As well, the intervention by my friend, the member for Crowfoot, was very timely and well placed.

I embrace much of what the hon. member said when he spoke of the feeling of disconnected children in the country, in particular in places that he is familiar with, the maritimes, where there is a transitional way of life that often leads families to move elsewhere, to uproot from their communities, perhaps in the hope of returning some day. This often leaves children drifting.

We know as well that the commentary with respect to the economic impact on those who get involved in criminal activity is very real.

No matter how far-reaching and how interventionist the legislation may be, without the proper funding it is not going to achieve the desired effect. Throughout the commentary on the bill, both in the House and later at committee, I think we will see that the emphasis and the philosophy is perhaps correct, to put it on the front end and to try to address the root causes and intervene in an early fashion, as opposed to waiting until a crime has been committed. However, without the resources it is going to be virtually impossible.

My friend touched on this in some detail in his speech. I am wondering if he could elaborate on where those resources should be placed specifically, as well as the programming that is envisioned by the bill, the programming that talks of getting children involved in sports programs, for example, locating difficulties with respect to education, perhaps diagnosing psychological illnesses, perhaps even going to the drastic step of removing a child from a home, which child welfare has the authority to do.

It appears to me that this legislation, as well intended as it may be, is simply going to further download the responsibilities that are already being carried by the existing agencies. It is going to put further pressure on these agencies, which are currently underfunded. We know, and the hon. member touched on it, that the legislation does not carry with it sufficient financial backing to accomplish all of these wonderful goals and these airy principles that are to be accomplished.

Would my hon. friend comment on that?

[Points Of Order, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in reviewing some of the sections of Beauchesne's one is hit square in the face with the fact that the sub judice convention deals specifically with debate, and that is not the case with the matter that is before the House. There is no bar whatsoever on the House itself considering legislation.

Mr. Speaker, you would be well aware of the fact that if that was the case every time a matter wound up before the courts parliament would be completely impotent and paralysed from considering legislation.

I would suggest that the point of order from the hon. member of the Reform Party is completely out of order.

[Canada Elections Act, October 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to follow my hon. colleague. He has hit a very important tone; that is, on an issue such as this there should certainly be an element of co-operation

I also appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly to Bill C-2, formerly Bill C-83, an act to replace the Canada Elections Act. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, this is the first attempt in over 30 years to address this problem. The way in which this country elects its representatives is the cornerstone of democracy. It is important to examine closely all of the ways in which those changes would impact on our system.

To repeat what has been said earlier, this attempt, although perhaps the bill itself may appear at first blush as being rather cumbersome and lengthy, is a very important exercise as we engage in looking at some of these changes. Such legislation is required to update the language, add new provisions and recognize the content to reflect changes in the political landscape.

Roger Gibbons, a noted and highly respected political scientist and author, said that in most instances there is very little incentive to change a system that is on the government's side, a system that was responsible for electing it. I give the government some credit for having taken this bold initiative. Time will tell as to whether some of these suggested changes toward making the process more democratic will actually come to fruition.

Canada's electoral laws in their current form, while still very effective, do require updating. All Canadians, not just politicians, are affected very directly by our electoral laws, as voters, political party volunteers, as well as those who work as election officials on voting days have a very unique stake in what this legislation entails.

We know that just 38% of the Canada population elected the current government, which resulted in this very precarious majority government system that we now have.

I will not take the time of the House to review the bill in great depth that we are sending off to committee because it is at committee where this study will really get down to the nuts and bolts. However, I will point out a number of the positive elements as well as some of the areas of the bill that the Progressive Conservative Party takes issue with.

First, we are pleased to see that third party spending limits have been reintroduced to the $150,000 maximum, with no more than $3,000 against the individual candidate.

The PC Party is also pleased to see that measures have been taken to control Internet advertising. There is no ignoring the advances that are being made technologically in the country and while the Internet is a remarkable tool of communication for millions of Canadians we are still fine tuning its appropriate use. One needs only to mention the issue of child pornography and other particular broadcasts that are taking place on the Internet to highlight the fact that this is an area that has to be examined very carefully. The potential for abuse is very real.

Bill C-2 would eliminate the possibility of adding or deleting content from political parties' election websites after a blackout period, which is 72 to 48 hours. This is a positive step. Given the fact that someone could elevate confusion just prior to an election, this is something we have to take very seriously.

Just as with the Internet, the emergence of polls as an important communication tool is another element that cannot be ignored. The release of polls in relation to the proximity of election day has been an ongoing source of concern and frustration both for the elector and the electorate.

I am very pleased therefore to see that the provisions in the bill would require an individual or polling company who releases a poll during a writ period to provide an in-depth analysis of the poll itself, speaking to the voracity, I suggest, and the importance of the accuracy of the information being relayed. One can only hope that this measure would dramatically reduce the number of polls that are perhaps based on inaccurate or inadequate data. I also believe that it is important that the media take greater responsibility in clearly outlining the poll's methodology and how the findings were reported.

Another very positive change that has been alluded to is the changing of the voting hours, particularly in the province of Saskatchewan, but I suggest it is as important in Chicoutimi as it is in Antigonish or anywhere in the country.

An interesting addition to the legislation that is not contained in Bill C-2 would be to require the chief electoral officer to notify the leader of a political party of any outstanding filings from candidates. This, I believe, would be consistent with the efforts to be more transparent and open as to how all financial matters are being conducted.

The Conservative Party supports the initiative of the chief electoral officer to provide candidates with an estimation of the spending limits in their respective ridings. Greater clarity and understanding of the rules of engagement are extremely important to running efficient, effective and honest elections. This is certainly a tool that would assist candidates as they undertake their election preparedness.

An examination of the finances that takes place in Bill C-2 is an extremely important part of the legislation. Increased accountability, increased accessibility, transparency and all of those fine watch words that we hear have to be more than just words.

To quote the previous speaker, there is a high degree of cynicism that exists about the process that of course flows into a degree of cynicism about politics in general. If we can address this at the outset, early in the process, the process that is responsible for each and every member of the House arriving here in Ottawa as a representative, it will perhaps help to stem, to a degree, the cynicism that does exist.

Being able to identify how much money is given to parties will allow for scrutiny. There is some concern as to how this might act as a disincentive to some, but it is certainly an important area to look at and it is one of the specific areas that we in the Conservative Party very much look forward to examining in greater detail at the committee.

It is perhaps important as well to look at the raising of the thresholds for 75% of political tax credits from $100 to $200. We have some concerns with respect to the publishing of contributor's names and specific information about where they are doing business, their location and the ways in which they may be contacted. This may be a disincentive for some and if we want to encourage people to participate on a financial level in the process I think there has to be some respect for confidentiality. However, this will be dealt with in greater detail at the committee.

The return of the $1,000 candidate's deposit also encourages people to participate in the actual process because this is the basic threshold that a person has to cross to enter into the fray. The return of the $1,000 deposit is an important change.

The current legislation simply requires that a name be provided when a donation is made. Bill C-2, just to hearken back to my earlier point, now requires that an individual must provide addresses for publication. This may raise real concerns for individuals who do not wish to have this information made public. The committee will be delving into that in greater detail.

Another area of concern that the Conservative Party has, and it is a rather vague concept, deals with the issue of party mergers. I will not get into this particular debate today. There has been a lot of debate outside of the House in a different context, and it is not something that the Conservative Party has pursued.

My initial interpretation of the section in Bill C-2 dealing with mergers requires simply that two political parties wishing to merge obtain a signature of two leaders in respective parties. I can think of a personal example where that will not happen. A 30-day waiting period is then imposed.

However, there is some concern that when an election is called, that the merger itself would be nullified. So there is some nebulous content in the bill respecting mergers. I believe we may be heading down a slippery slope if we were to accept carte blanche what is currently in the legislation.

There is one other concern I would just like to put on the record. Our party has some difficulty with the role of the registered district agents or auditors. While the principle behind this is sound, it is imperative that the mandate and the position of this particular person be clarified in the legislation. The role of the registered district agent or auditor has far-reaching powers and it is something that must be clarified.

We are also aware of the seriousness of electoral fraud. We know it can be a problem. We must therefore empower those auditors and individuals entrusted with the role of overseeing elections with the ability to act and act with clarity and force. However, those powers must be carefully examined before they are laid down.

I think there was mention of the difference between rural and the vouching for individuals. We recognize that there is in some instances in rural communities the ability of a neighbour to come and vouch for a person but there should be some clarity and perhaps a method for doing so.

I am encouraged that the government has recognized this as an area for change to produce a more democratic, better functioning electoral system. I look forward to taking part in the debate at the committee and look forward to waiting to see how the government will react to the input that it will receive no doubt from all members of the opposition.

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my hon. colleague opposite. He made a very thoughtful and thought provoking speech. I know that as an active and able member of the justice committee he holds very sincerely to the ideals he has put forward.

I listened with particular interest when he spoke of parliamentary neglect as opposed to judicial activism. I guess it goes without saying that as a member on the government side he is in a very unique position in his ability now to move the government to being more active in some of the social areas that he touched upon.

I want to focus my question to him specifically on an issue that I know he holds dear to his heart. It involves the job that is currently before our police forces, the RCMP and municipal forces across the country. He would know that today the Canadian Police Association held a press conference where it spoke on some of the issues it feels are priority issues for it and consequently is hoping to awaken the government with respect to some similar issues.

In particular, I would like to get the member's comments arising out of the throne speech where some of the policing issues I feel were not given a great deal of attention or a great deal of emphasis. We know that there were announcements, or perhaps more appropriately I would call them reannouncements, of the general commitment that the government has to policing services. However there was never really any detail put forward as to what it intends to do.

The hon. member would know that the RCMP in particular is facing a near crisis with respect to the increase in drug trafficking, illegal immigration, organized crime and crime stemming from the increase in Mafia, and I am talking about Mafia from outside Canada obviously.

I wonder if the member would address specifically what he feels the government can do and if his support is there with respect to increased resources that would assist the police in their efforts to fortify themselves for the storm of increasing criminal activity that is resulting in increased crime and the public pressures with which they are contending. At the same time resources have been cut and they are not in a position to respond adequately. I would suggest that the same situation exists in our armed forces.

Specifically with respect to the police I am wondering what it is he suggests we should be doing and what the government intends to do about this increasing problem in Canada.

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-242, an act to amend the Criminal Code (Order of prohibition).

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me every time I rise to speak in the House. The bill I am introducing is very important for all Canadian children.

The bill would bring about changes to the Criminal Code, section 161 in particular, and is aimed at children who are the most vulnerable in the country right now. It would also empower judges to reduce contact between sex offenders and children. In particular, we know there is a difficulty with recidivism of pedophiles and abusers of children.

This private member's bill arose at the urging of Ms. Donna Goler of Kings—Hants, Nova Scotia. She herself was a survivor of horrendous sexual abuse and is a person who has been very much advocating this change.

On behalf of Miss Golder and all children, I would urge that all members of the House support this important change.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Young Offenders Act, October 18th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-241, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is being reintroduced and will bring about changes to the current young offenders act. I suggest it will have that application as well for the new Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The bill is aimed at lowering the age of accountability from the current age of 12 to the age of 10. It is not aimed at increasing the number of children before the courts but to give our current justice system a mechanism to help children who run afoul of the law, at the urging of others in many instances, and to allow the courts and our justice system to respond. The bill would lower the age of accountability from 12 to 10.

I would urge all hon. members to give the bill due consideration and support.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, obviously an even-handed approach is needed. One approach being suggested, that we would single out the aboriginals who have now been given this right by the supreme court and attempt to enforce it in a way that is unfettered, is unacceptable.

Obviously the minister is not about to single out one of the two groups in the divide. That I suggest would only lead to further confrontation and further violence. The difficulty is that this is a tinderbox that is absolutely on the verge of an explosion.

I do not mean to restate the obvious, but the minister has to act quickly. This is something that is going to get out of control like wildfire in an instant.

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the final dying moments of this debate.

I begin by congratulating the minister of fisheries who in a rare show of interest and willingness to listen to opposition members has stayed here in the House. Even against the advice of some members of the House that he should be in New Brunswick or in Nova Scotia, he has stayed here and has genuinely listened to and participated in the debate. I and other members of this party appreciate that effort and show of good faith.

I must take him up on a comment he made in his remarks that he had acted quickly. We have to revisit the chronology of what has taken place.

On September 17 the Marshall decision was handed down by the supreme court. He said that he acted within three days. But what happened? Within three days the Canadian public learned that the House of Commons was to be prorogued so he did not have the benefit of the wisdom of members who were very close to the issue, like my colleagues from South Shore and West Nova and other members of the House who have greatly benefited and even enlightened the minister to a degree during the course of the debate.

From that point we know that on September 27 the minister spoke of implementing some form of a response, a government action, to inform all stakeholders of what the government intended to do. That did not come about.

On October 9 the chiefs of the aboriginal communities stated that they were willing to embark on the possibility of a moratorium. On October 13, after meeting with the minister, hours after he had departed the maritimes, the chiefs themselves imposed a moratorium. It was a self-imposed pre-emptive move to give the government time to respond and to formulate its response.

Sadly, communications have now completely broken down to the point where we know the moratorium is no longer in place. The chiefs have decided they will not abide by the self-imposed moratorium. That is problematic.

We can engage in all kinds of partisan rhetoric. It is very easy for the Reform and the NDP to cast aspersions on current and past governments, having never had the luxury of having to make those tough decisions. It is a very easy thing to do, making statements that are not true. It does not make them true simply because they are said in this place.

The clock is ticking. There is more than just preservation of stocks at stake; there is preservation of human lives at stake. The potential for violence is real. It has already been played out in certain communities like Burnt Church and it is also on the tip of breaking out in parts of Nova Scotia, on the South Shore in particular and in parts of Cape Breton Island.

In my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough there are many aboriginal participants already in the commercial fishery. There is the ability for peaceful entry into this industry. That has been displayed in the past. That offer has been extended in the past and I assume it will be extended in the future.

Timeliness is the issue now. I know the minister is sincere in his efforts and in his words to find the solutions, but there is little time to waste.

The minister must be proactive. We support him in his efforts to find the solutions, but those solutions will only come from the input of all stakeholders, including aboriginals and non-aboriginal fishers who have an equally important stake in the outcome. Given what the supreme court has handed down, given this dark abyss that is now before us, it does not just pertain to fisheries, as we have heard many times in the debate this evening. This goes far beyond one single industry.

This is the tip of the iceberg and the government is steaming toward that iceberg unless it acts quickly. With the closing moments of the debate I implore the minister to continue on the road he is on, but to do so in a very pragmatic and measured way, and to listen to the stakeholders who are equally sincere and have the greatest stake in the resolution of the matter. I encourage him to do so with post-haste. We do support him in that and I sincerely wish him the very best in finding the solutions that will appease all of those who are looking for a peaceful resolution to the matter.

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the remarks by the hon. member whose riding is across the Northumberland Strait from my own in Nova Scotia. As parliamentary secretary he was very involved in the ministry and speaks quite authoritatively about issues like conservation, changing the carapace size, which he supported even against some of the wishes of the fishers in his area, and other measures which were taken.

How is this tardy response on this decision, which permits native fishers to enter this fishery unfettered by regulation and all the rules and regulations in place that are consistent with conservation, and his minister's inaction and his government's decision not to respond consistent with conservation?