Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[BAN ON SHARK FIN IMPORTATION ACT, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-380, introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam. I thank the member for his work on this issue. I know he has been working extremely hard to move forward on this and that he has conducted extensive consultations.

There seems to be a consensus regarding this bill, except on the part of the Conservatives, who have a habit of opposing sensible legislation.

Nevertheless, I rise here today in the hopes of convincing them, since there will be a vote on this next Wednesday, if I am not mistaken. I hope we will have the support of enough members of the House to pass this bill and send it to committee.

I thought it was important for me to rise and express my support for this bill, and that of most of my NDP colleagues, at second reading here today. From what I understand, the Liberals will also be supporting it. I hope all members of that party will do so. I also hope that the Conservatives will get on board this time in order to put an end to this problem, which is affecting more and more marine ecosystems around the world. I will come back to this point a little later.

To begin with, as usual, when I study a bill, I like to see for myself exactly what is in the legislation. The bill we are studying here today is very simple. It contains two important points.

First of all, this bill amends the Fish Inspection Act. It prohibits the importation of shark fins not attached to the rest of the shark carcass. That detail is important. It is an important aspect of the legislation that I will explain in detail a little later. Second, the bill amends the Fisheries Act to prohibit the practice of shark finning. I support both of these very simple, sensible clauses in the bill.

The bill adds subsection 3.1(1) to section 3 of the Fish Inspection Act to prohibit the importation of fins, with some exceptions, since special permits can nevertheless be issued.

In addition, the bill also adds subsection 32.1(1) to the Fisheries Act, prohibiting the practice of shark finning and defining that practice. Those are the two amendments this bill makes.

Why are these measures important? Why did my colleague decide to introduce this bill today? The reason is very simple: we currently have a very serious problem with our oceans. Shark species are going extinct. In fact, approximately one-third of species are currently in danger of extinction. This is therefore a critical and urgent problem that we want Canada to help solve.

I know that this bill will not eliminate the problem overnight. However, at least Canada will have sent a very clear message that we are taking measures to try to reduce this practice as much as possible because we are aware of the problem that it is currently causing.

The situation is critical. We must take action to protect and preserve our marine ecosystems. Sharks are at the very top of the ocean food chain, and so they play an extremely important role in the survival of the ecosystem in general, which would be greatly affected by the extinction of most species of sharks. Sharks are a vital component of the ecosystem.

I would like to mention some important statistics. I think that all the members who spoke today mentioned that approximately 100 million sharks are killed every year for their fins.

If that trend continues, up to 20 shark species could be functionally extinct by 2017. Another important statistic: Canada imports an average of just over 100 tons of shark fins per year. According to a CTV news report, testing conducted in British Columbia to determine whether shark fins could easily be found in Canada and what species those fins came from showed that 76% of shark fins came from endangered species of sharks. That means that most shark fins in Canada come from endangered species.

How is shark finning done? In my opinion, this is a horrible, barbaric and abominable practice. It is inhumane to do what is being done right now: fishers are setting lines that are 85 km long in the hopes of catching sharks, knowing full well that many other species will be killed by this type of fishing. The sharks are even sometimes still alive when they are brought onto the boats. The sharks' fins are simply cut off and their bodies are dumped back into the ocean. Clearly, the sharks will then die because they cannot swim without their fins. It is hard to believe.

When I watched the documentary Sharkwater recently, I was quite surprised and disappointed to see that human beings are capable of being so disrespectful toward nature. These animals are basically being tortured. As I mentioned earlier, it is important that Canada send a clear message in this regard, and that is the spirit of this bill. Clearly, we object to this practice.

Earlier, I heard a member say that this could hurt the economy, but we know full well that shark meat is eaten only on rare occasions. Shark meat is rarely eaten. Most of the time, sharks are fished simply for their fins since their meat cannot be eaten because it often contains too much mercury. It is a bit of a flawed argument to say that the industry could also produce shark meat. It is a bit of a stretch to say that this would hurt the economy.

Communities that eat shark are changing their customs. The member for Brossard—La Prairie gave a speech about it. He said that the majority of communities and the new generation oppose the practice. Many countries, including China, have prohibited importing shark fins. China has also imposed restrictions, because it does not want shark fin to be served at its official banquets. The Chinese government has even signalled that it does not agree with the practice, which is a threat to our ecosystems.

I do not have much time left, so I would like to conclude by thanking my colleague once again and congratulating him. Today, Canada has a duty to send a message that we oppose this practice and we no longer want to be part of this trade, which is often a black market trade and even involves organized crime. This bill sends a clear message to the international community that we are taking this situation seriously, that we want to protect our ecosystems and that we want to protect the environment for future generations who will have to deal with the fallout of this practice if we do not put an immediate end to it.

I encourage all of my colleagues, from all sides, to support this bill and send it to committee so that any necessary amendments can be made. I know that my colleague is open to sensible proposals. At the very least, this bill should be sent to committee.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say right off the bat that I share my colleague's passion for the armed forces. I have many reservists living in my riding and I visit them quite often. I also frequently visit two regiments in my riding, the Sherbrooke Hussars and the Fusiliers de Sherbrooke. These are two extraordinary regiments and I salute them today.

My colleague mentioned that everyone should have the same rights, but that military justice is unique, since there is a chain of command. My colleagues have spoken about that already today. There must be a difference, of course. We must ensure that the people who serve our country and who dedicate their lives to Canada are entitled to the rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the charter gives everyone the right to fair and equitable justice and access to counsel. That is not covered in Bill C-15. Despite the differences in the military justice system, members of the military must have the same rights as all Canadian citizens, which includes access to a fair and equitable justice system. As stated in section 10 of the charter, they must also have the right to retain and instruct counsel and receive legal advice, which is not currently the case. Members of our military deserve some respect for everything they go through every day.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, as a parliamentarian and legislator, my goal is not to prolong debates, but to make a positive contribution to the debate in order to ensure that a law that is passed is well written and that there is no chance that a bad bill will have direct consequences for the people covered by the bill. That is the duty of legislators.

I cannot speak for the MPs in the 40th Parliament. Like my colleague, the member for Ajax—Pickering and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I was not a member in the 40th Parliament. However, I do know that some specific things were asked for and they were not included in Bill C-15. We were never given an answer by the government about that.

As for our position on clause 4, I would say that if the proposed amendments are not adopted, it will not prevent us from voting in favour of Bill C-15 in its present form.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-15 after my colleagues. I must admit, they made very interesting and very precise speeches on the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I thank the hon. member for her efforts and for presenting these amendments.

First of all, I must say that I support her amendments. We had presented practically the same ones in committee. Clearly, we are going to support them because they are quite logical.

I will come back to that a little later in my speech because it has been mentioned a few times that consideration of the amendments must be very precise at report stage, which is what I will try to do as much as possible today to enlighten my colleagues on this bill and, more specifically, on the amendments.

If I may, I would like to give a little background before moving on to the heart of the subject, even if it does not please my colleagues.

I think Canadians listening to us would be very pleased to know how Bill C-15 ended up in the House, what we are currently doing and what still needs to be done for it to eventually become law.

The process began in 2003. In this debate today, we have been saying that the process began 10 years ago, following on the report of the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of the Supreme Court. The report contained 88 recommendations.

Bill C-15 is a kind of legislative response to the recommendations in that report. However, there is a big “but”, because Bill C-15 does not completely reflect those recommendations. In reality, it responds very little to the report that contained 88 recommendations. In fact, the government has attempted to implement only about 20 of them since then.

Since 2003, the report by the hon. Patrick LeSage, retired Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has also been presented. That was in December 2011. On June 8, 2012, the Minister of National Defence himself tabled that report here in the House. Although the Conservative government has had the LeSage report for over a year, it still did not incorporate any of its recommendations into Bill C-15.

As the hon. member for Beaches—East York pointed out, the government has been sitting on that report for a year now and nothing has been implemented. The NDP, however, did try to have some of those recommendations incorporated into Bill C-15.

There have also been several other versions. I will not spend too much time on this, since that is not really what interests us the most at this stage of the bill. However, there was also Bill C-7 and Bill C-45, which both died on the order paper because of the 2008 election after Parliament was prorogued. Then, in July 2008, there was another version, Bill C-60.

The bill that was most in line with what we wanted was Bill C-41, introduced in 2010, also further to the Lamer report. All of the bills introduced after that report were basically in response to that report. Bill C-41, which had fortunately been amended in committee, also died on the order paper because an election was called, which, as some people may recall, was due to a case of contempt of Parliament on the part of the Conservative government, on a question of access to sensitive documents. That is also not the subject of today's debate. We all remember what happened.

Bill C-15 is similar to Bill C-41, which was the result of committee work in the last session. However, significant amendments made at committee stage during the last Parliament were not included in Bill C-15. When Bill C-15 was introduced, one of our biggest disappointments was that it did not contain all of the changes made to Bill C-41 during the previous Parliament. We were very disappointed, and we wondered why they had not been included in Bill C-15.

However, I should point out that we had a small win in committee and we managed to do some good. Not that long ago, we had to make changes so that nearly 95% of the offences in the code of discipline would no longer result in a criminal record. That is an important win for us. Canadians who do not serve in the Canadian Forces are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which uses a fair and balanced justice system to protect the public. However, we felt that members of the Canadian Forces were not offered the same protection as other Canadians.

That brings me to the two amendments proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I would like to read Bill C-15, as it now stands. We are talking about clause 4 of the bill, which would add sections 18.3 through 18.6 to the current National Defence Act, after the existing section 18.2. The two amendments focus on subsections 18.5(3) and 18.5(4), which read as follows:

(3) The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation.

(4) The Provost Marshal shall ensure that instructions and guidelines issued under subsection (3) are available to the public.

We tried to amend these provisions in committee. Unfortunately, those amendments were not accepted and the provisions remained unchanged. Today, two motions were moved. We want to expand on clause 4 to make it a bit more specific by adding the following:

The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may, with the consent of the Provost Marshal and in accordance with the respective roles, responsibilities and principles set out in the Accountability Framework signed by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Provost Marshal on March 2, 1998, issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation, providing that the rationale for issuing the instructions or guidelines is also stated.

This motion further narrows the proposed amendment to Bill C-15 in order to ensure the transparency of orders given by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, a position created by this bill. All of clause 4 is, in fact, an addition to the current National Defence Act with regard to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.

In our opinion, subsection 18.5(3) was much too problematic. The statement that “[t]he Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation” means that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff has the power to give instructions to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal with respect to a particular investigation.

I liked the analogy used earlier by the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood about the military and civilian police. He spoke about the mayor of a city calling up the local police chief and telling him how to proceed with an investigation or what he can or cannot do. We would regard that as direct interference in the right to an independent police investigation, whether it was being conducted by the civilian or military police. The law must be much more clear and transparent to ensure that there is no interference in investigations, which must remain as independent as possible.

My time is up. I would be pleased to answer questions.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and would like to ask him a very simple question.

Does he feel that it is important to strike a balance between police access to information to solve crimes or conduct investigations, and the privacy of Canadian citizens? Why is this balance important? Does the bill allow for a mechanism like this that would enable the authorities to conduct investigations while respecting the rights of Canadian citizens?

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his speech.

I would like to ask him a very simple question. I know that he has a legal background and training, and I believe he is still a member of the Barreau du Québec. I would like to know why it is important that laws presented to Parliament comply with the charter and that they first pass the test of the justice department's officials.

Why is it important for parliamentarians to be assured that the legislation they debate respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in view of the fact that Bill C-30 was introduced in the House and that Bill C-55 is the response to an unconstitutional provision of an existing law, namely section 184.4 of the Criminal Code?

Why is it important for our laws to respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That is my question for my colleague.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her response.

I would like to know her thoughts on the comments made by the Minister of Public Safety, who lumped together everyone who was against his bill. Finally, he is realizing today that he, himself, was perhaps in the same boat, because the Conservatives decided to reject that bill.

Can she give her thoughts on the minister's comments? Does she think he realized the import of his actions later and that he is now in exactly the same position as the opposition, in other words, against the bill?

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her speech.

I would like to ask her a broader question about the fact that police authorities can access Canadians' personal, private communications.

Why is it so important that this does not violate the Constitution? Why is it so important that we properly examine this power before we move forward? What are the consequences of giving the authorities these powers? Why is it so important to provide a proper framework for them so that Canadians' rights are not violated?

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. She hit the nail on the head.

Does she think the trust between parliamentarians, legislators and the mechanism for approving the constitutionality of legislation is now somehow broken or reduced?

How does she see the relationship between parliamentarians, legislators and the fact that Bill C-30 was introduced in the House of Commons? Does she believe a bond of trust has been broken?

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

What process must a bill go through in order to obtain the constitutional approval of public servants? Some would say that this process is not as clear or as effective as it should be.

How did Bill C-30 manage to get through that process and make it to the House of Commons, where we immediately saw that it was unconstitutional? How did that bill make it to this House, only to be withdrawn by the Conservatives, who then introduced Bill C-55, which is before us here today?

What was the process and why was such a process needed, when it probably cost taxpayers money since this had to go before the Supreme Court?