Bill C-32 (Historical)

Fisheries Act, 2007

An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's seacoast and inland fisheries

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

One of the key differences, Claire, would be that under Bill C-32 the minister's decision, if it were enforced today, would actually be challengeable under law. In other words, an intervenor could bring it before a federal court and have the court adjudicate as to whether the minister's decision was appropriate or not. Is that correct?

[Claire Dansereau]

The minister has spoken a number of times on this, and he does take into consideration those items that he would take into consideration, I think, under Bill C-32, which are adjacency and also history.

The decision he made in this case was within an existing industrial structure, so between two companies that currently exist within the fishery, I think that was right. His consideration was therefore given to the historical attachment more so than to the adjacency attachment to Nunavut, which was where the debate was. He weighed both factors in this case.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

It seems a little funny to me. If you were overly suspicious, you'd say we'll get it done before Bill C-32 becomes law. But I'm not suspicious.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

I'm probably being unfair to push the issue with you. I wanted to do it with the minister on Tuesday, but of course we ran out of time.

In light of where we are with Bill C-32, you'd think that in making this decision, or maybe not making it, the minister would have said that in Bill C-32, here's where we're aiming to get, so why would I go do this at this point in time? Do you know what I'm saying?

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

I saw a recent letter to your minister from the Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries minister, Minister Rideout, expressing concern about this transfer. He talked about adjacency, dependency, and I believe at one point in one part of the letter he mentioned some concern about Bill C-32. I think they felt some comfort in Bill C-32, that this type of thing wouldn't happen.

I know the minister has to respond to the other minister. But what do you think off the top about Minister Rideout's concerns?

[David Bevan]

We received many, many comments. We made changes where there was a consensus. As you see from the changes from Bill C-45 to Bill C-32, there weren't a great number, but those were the areas where there had been consensus from the interested parties, stakeholders, etc. The rest of the comments could be diametrically opposed. For example, there are people wanting to have the allocations almost take on the conditions or properties of property, and others don't want that to take place at all. We have differing views from one end of the spectrum to the other. We've reflected the middle view, if you will, in the changes that were made, and we think this is where we do have consensus on the changes from Bill C-45 to Bill C-32.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

One of things touched upon in Bill C-32 to the new and improved version of the Fisheries Act was it addressed some of the issues brought up from when it was Bill C-45. Are you familiar with the changes made to Bill C-32? Can you justify each and every one of the changes that were made?

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you very much, Peter. Snappers: that's the right way to get the questions in.

Concerning letting the groups know, yes, we certainly will. I would suggest that it's a job for you people too, as representatives. You've heard what I've said in the House; you've heard what I've said here. I don't say it unless I mean it. You can tell them that we are aware of it, and not only are we not going to let it happen, but you are not going to let it happen. With things like that, we're all in the same boat—the seal issue, the trade issue. This is beyond one party or petty politics.

On Bill C-32, a motion was passed in the House that I consider bringing it to the committee before second reading. I have considered that. We will not be sending it to the committee before second reading, but I would challenge you. We need to get on to deal with this bill. You need to get on with dealing with it.

In the first round, when we had it in the House as Bill C-45, a number of you raised issues, and relevant ones, even though some of it was for clarification—but clarification was needed. Major changes were made along the lines of what you asked for. When it came back again, that wasn't satisfactory. I think it is. To a large extent, I don't think there's anything there that can't be changed with outside discussions and work here at the committee. I offer to bring the bill into the House and ask either to have a short debate and move it to you here at the committee or to get unanimous consent to bring it to you and then you can do what you want. If you want to go around the country with it, which I would support, do it, and let's get on with it.

But it's not coming to the committee before second reading. That is extremely dangerous. You could end up with completely different legislation. It may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than what we had. There are a lot of things we need to do. Every fisheries minister across the country is supportive, and just about every fishing group.

I would suggest this: get the bill through, bring it to the committee, do whatever you want with it, and then let's move on with it. And I'll give you the opportunity to do that sooner rather than later.

In terms of marine service fees, I would suggest that pretty soon—in days, hours, that type of thing—we'll be dealing with that issue.

As for the Nunavut transfer, I was surprised to hear you ask that, because you were one of those around this very table who expressed a lot of concern about what was happening with the resource that has been landed in the north and about who the real beneficiaries were. I would think you probably still have those concerns, because I have.

The transfer that was made was simply a transfer between fleets that had fish and who had started the fishery, all of it being caught, landed, and processed in Canada, not landed in Greenland and sent over to some other foreign country. This was no different from any other transfer we would have made ordinarily.

In terms of the chinook, we are concerned with the major bycatch. The ambassador has taken that up with the United States, and we ourselves have. We have set, I think, 130,000...the last year they counted. The maximum limit for bycatch is such that we hope to have around 37,000...if I remember its number correctly. A bycatch of that magnitude can certainly have a real adverse effect.

Concerning the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, the FFMC, I'm meeting with Mr. Wood, in fact this week. I think you may have met him. If not, you probably should have him in. There's a new approach, new ideas, a change in fishery.

I met with Minister Melnick—you probably know Minister Melnick from Manitoba—some time ago. She's a very progressive individual; we got along very well.

Her dream of marketing this fresh fish jumping out of the cold stream in Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba—fresh on the market, which is the way to go—has a lot of potential. We can't have fish on the road for six days—six days on the road, and they're going to be processed tonight—in a frozen state, much like the old block in our fish plants.

We have a chance to make a difference there, but I think the board itself is looking at it. Do we need either/or? Maybe not. We might be able to work together to provide what the fishermen need.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Minister and staff, for coming today.

Sir, you've indicated your strong support for making sure the WTO doesn't go where we don't want it to go. We appreciate those comments, but one of the concerns is that the fishermen need to hear it. The officials we had before said they had talked to various representative groups across the country, but when I spoke to some of those groups, they were caught completely off guard.

My only advice in that regard is to make sure that the first nations, Phil Fontaine and Shawn Atleo, the PEIFA, the MFU, and the Eastern Shore Fishermen's Protective Association--those organizations that represent the fishermen--are fully aware of what the government intends to do regarding these talks. That would go a long way to alleviating some of those fears.

Sir, some of my questions for you and then for the officials afterwards are about a motion that was passed in the House on division on Bill C-32 to ask the minister to bring the new fisheries bill drafted by the government to the committee before second reading. That was passed by the House. I'm just wondering if indeed you are going to honour that request.

The other one, of course, is well over a year ago.... Mr. Da Pont knows this well; this is now the fifth time I have asked him. It is regarding the marine service fees north of 60 degrees and why they haven't been removed yet, even though it was passed by the House and we've asked many times.

The FFMC, I understand, is going through a review process. Could you let us know how that is going?

Also, there is a concern in Nunavut regarding the recent proposal of transfer of fish from the Barry group to Clearwater. That is causing some concern to the hunters and trappers.

I'll ask my last question before I run out of time. On the west coast there has been an issue regarding the chinook and the bycatch from some U.S. fishermen. What is the government doing to alleviate those concerns?

I'll ask questions on the Fraser River fishery later. Obviously I've run out of time, of course.

Thank you.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Minister, there seems to be a convergence here of a whole number of issues, a number of files.

In the WTO draft agreement on fisheries subsidies, it specifically states in article V on fisheries management that a country's domestic fisheries practices would be challengeable by WTO members. In fact, what it says is that each member state:

shall adopt and implement pertinent domestic legislation and administrative or judicial enforcement mechanisms. It is desirable that such fisheries management systems be based on limited access privileges.

It goes on to describe that under annex VIII, for every country, their own domestic management practices could be challengeable within the WTO as to whether they meet a conservation standard.

We also have sort of a convergence here with NAFO. The NAFO draft convention, the proposed changes to the convention, includes the possibility of NAFO control not only in the regulatory area outside the 200 miles, but as well, via consensus, inside the regulatory area, basically the entire convention area inside 200 miles. In other words, NAFO could be a stand-in for the WTO's adjudication of whether or not a WTO member country's domestic fisheries management practices are in the best interest of conservation. NAFO would then be the judge of a WTO challenge, as I see it.

You also have the new fisheries act, Bill C-32, which actually, in clause 43, allows you as minister the right to establish fisheries management agreements with other outside bodies, other than the Government of Canada.

There seems to be a very unique coincidence here, a whole number of domestic and foreign policy issues that seem to be converging on the ability for outside interests, other than Canadian domestic policy, to judge or decide on Canadian fisheries management practices. Is this just a coincidence?

Fisheries

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, again, one of the ways the hon. member can help is give me the tools to do the job.

I told him to pass Bill C-32 so that I can help fishermen.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Good morning, everybody. My good friend Mr. Byrne just reminded me it's Valentine's Day, so happy Valentine's Day to everybody.

I'm very pleased to join you. With me today are my deputy minister, Michelle d'Auray; my new associate deputy, whom you haven't met before, I don't believe, Claire Dansereau; Canadian Coast Guard Commissioner George Da Pont; DFO's assistant deputy minister of human resources and corporate services, Cal Hegge; and no stranger to you as members of the committee, Mr. David Bevan, my department's ADM of fisheries and aquaculture management.

As always, let me recognize the value of advice the committee provides to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, particularly your recent work on small craft harbours. Thank you for the interim report in December. I look forward to seeing its final version after you return from visiting the east coast harbours.

As I was mentioning to one of your members just a few minutes ago, I sat on this committee for five years and thoroughly enjoyed it. During that time we had an extremely good cohesive relationship with everybody. I credit a lot of what is happening in the field of fisheries—some of the initiatives we have taken, some we continued from previous ministers, some new ones—to the work of the committee. In fact, if you look at some of the key issues with which we're dealing, you will see that the ideas, the reports, and the suggestions and recommendations really came from this committee. So again I thank you for that.

As minister, my top priority has been renewing our fishery for the long-term prosperity of its participants. This means considering the economic viability of the fishery and positioning the industry to provide the right products to the right markets at the right time. This approach is about improving the value, rather than the volume, of the fishery for everybody up and down the seafood chain, to preserve a good livelihood for the many Canadians who fish in our waters. That's why I've gone to great lengths to work with stakeholders on an ocean-to-plate management approach that supports economically viable fisheries, a collaborative approach that I announced last April.

I believe that all players—the provinces, territories, and all facets of industry—must come together for the future of our fishery. We need to share ideas and a common direction to build a sustainable and economically resilient industry. I don't for a moment underestimate the challenges to the fishery or believe this vision of viability and resilience will be achieved easily.

At the same time, I'm proud of the progress we've made in stabilizing the industry and setting the stage for its long-term success. We see elements of this progress in the renewal policies I announced last spring, which have given fish harvesters greater flexibility and opportunity in running their businesses successfully. We see it in the multi-year integrated fishery initiatives that our government has put in place on both coasts. These initiatives are helping stabilize commercial fisheries for all participants and encouraging greater participation in the fishery by first nations under a common set of rules.

We see this progress in our policy to preserve the independence of an inshore fleet in Canada's Atlantic fisheries by phasing out controlling trust agreements. We see it in the new measures we're working on to help fish harvesters more easily secure financing from lenders.

Let me add that moving forward toward a collaborative and transparent management of an economically viable fishery lies at the very heart of Bill C-32, a bill that has had the support of the provinces and many stakeholders. The bill will modernize Canada's Fisheries Act to bring it more in line with today's industry and market realities. It will give participants a greater role and a greater say at the decision table.

After second reading we will look to this committee to help make the legislation the very best it can be for Canada's fishing industry and invite any further input from Canadians as you see fit.

In addition to the viability of related investments and initiatives, we've made progress on other fronts as well, such as enhancing marine safety, providing additional tax relief for retiring fish harvesters, and improving the health of our fishery resources and oceans.

For example, we committed $324 million in the last budget to bolster the Coast Guard fleet, which has been part of the $750 million overall commitment to the agency since February 2006.

We made permanent $20 million in annual funding that would have otherwise expired for the small craft harbours program to maintain safe and accessible harbours.

In 2006, our government introduced the lifetime capital gains exemption of $500,000 on the sale of fishing assets, and we increased that to $750,000. Of course, you know if it's sold within the family, there are no clawbacks whatsoever.

Of course, my vision for an economically viable fishery does not forsake the importance of other imperatives like sustainability of the resource, because without sustainability, there can be no long-term prosperity.

Internationally, our work with other nations in combatting overfishing and in improving Fisheries and Oceans governance is paying dividends. In 2005 there were 13 serious infractions in the NAFO regulatory area. In 2006 there were seven. Last year there was only one.

You may recall that in October we announced a total of $61.5 million over five years toward improving the health of Canada's oceans through a number of initiatives led by DFO and other federal departments.

DFO is also leading a $13 million investment in six research projects on climate change in northern waters as part of Canada's participation in the International Polar Year. We hope this research will provide a broader understanding of the effects of climate change on marine ecosystems in the north and what we might expect in the future further south.

Through last year's federal budget we were able to make substantial new investments in fisheries science and ecosystem-based management to the tune of $39 million over the first two years. This new funding has allowed us to stabilize our key science activities in collaboration with the fishing industry and to augment our ecosystem-based approach to research and fisheries management.

I'm not going to go on through a lot of other things, Mr. Chair, because I know you want to get into questions, and undoubtedly we'll talk about some of these things. But one of the key things that I believe we did over the last couple of years was to work with a number of provinces on what they refer to as fishery summits. In New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, and P.E.I. to a lesser extent, we held major round table discussions, major summits, involving every single player in the industry, from the towns to the industry representatives, harvesters, processors, marketers, and governments.

The interesting thing was that at the end of each one we had—and this is something I'll put in your heads for a later study, perhaps—a questionnaire asking, what is the biggest problem facing the industry in your region? A lot of us would think it would be wharves, Mr. Blais' area, or too many people chasing too few fish, as we hear. No, it was marketing. Every single area, all four, unanimously, said the biggest problem we have is marketing. If you come down to it, it's the end product that counts. If we don't put a good end product on the market and if we haven't achieved every possible ounce, inch, or cent out of that resource, then we haven't done our job. Somebody has fallen short.

So Mr. Chair and honourable members, I'm proud of what we're doing. I'm proud of the work the committee has done to help us do that work, and I recognize that the achievements alone can't address all the challenges that face Canada's fisheries. Because these challenges didn't manifest themselves overnight, there are no quick-fix solutions. But I believe, on the whole, we are taking the right steps in the right directions.

It will take time and the focused efforts of our government, our provincial and territorial partners, fishery stakeholders, and this committee to secure a brighter future for our coastal citizens. Providing Canada's fish harvesters with a modernized legislative framework would certainly be one way to keep the industry competitive, and it would help ensure that Canada's proud fishing heritage continues for generations to come.

I look forward to the continued guidance of the committee in building an economically viable and environmentally sustainable fishery.

Thank you very much, and certainly I'll be pleased to answer any questions you have.

[Tony Cannavino, President, Canadian Police Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Canadian Police Association welcomes the opportunity to appear today before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning your comprehensive review of matters related to impaired driving.

The CPA is the national voice for 57,000 police personnel serving across Canada. Through our 170 member associations, CPA membership includes police personnel serving in police services from Canada's smallest towns and villages, to our largest municipal cities, to provincial police services, to the RCMP.

Let me begin by thanking the committee for the work you and your colleagues in the House of Commons completed with respect to the issue of drug-impaired driving as addressed in Bill C-32, and subsequently in Bill C-2. We anxiously await these important measures and remain hopeful that the honourable members of the Senate will see fit to proceed with swift passage of the important legislation.

Motor vehicle collisions caused by impaired drivers are not accidents; these are crimes. Impaired driving remains the number one criminal cause of death in Canada. Despite our collective best efforts and intentions, it is apparent that the problem of impaired driving is worsening in Canada, and we are losing ground in our efforts to eliminate impaired driving.

We need a coordinated and integrated approach involving the federal government, provincial governments, and all stakeholders in the justice system, and we welcome the work of the committee in this regard. We would point out, however, that there have been numerous committees, bills, and studies over the past decade. The real problem seems to be in moving forward, beyond consultations, with adequate legislation and implementation.

We submit that the areas that need to be addressed in your review include the following.

The first is a legislative preamble. We would like Parliament to provide guidance to the judiciary through a legislative preamble or statement of principles, which acknowledges the inherent risks of impaired driving and the importance of meaningful and proportionate consequences for those who endanger the lives of others and of themselves.

The second is a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05%. Currently the legislated Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) limit is 0.08%. Given the margin of error accepted by the courts, this has been de facto enforced as a 0.10% limit, as police and prosecutors will not normally prosecute for less than 0.10%. Proposals have been advanced to reduce the legislative BAC to 0.05%. While the CPA does not have an official position on this issue, there is compelling evidence to suggest that this is a serious concern that needs to be addressed as part of a coordinated and integrated approach to Impaired Driving. Experience across the country varies by provincial legislative scheme and enforcement mechanisms. More work can and needs to be done, and Canada needs to adopt a strategy to address this issue.

The third is maximizing available technologies. We would encourage the committee to consider mechanisms to enable greater flexibility to improve the use of technology in combating Impaired Driving. Suggestions include enabling Mandatory Alcohol Interlock programs as a component or alternative to a mandatory driving prohibition period, and streamlining the approval process for Approved Instruments and Alcohol Screening Devices.

The fourth is random roadside breath testing. Presently Canadian police officers may only administer a roadside test using an Alcohol Screening Device when the officer has reason to suspect a driver may have consumed alcohol. Unfortunately this is not always practical especially when dealing with drivers involved in motor vehicle collisions. Some countries have permitted the use of random roadside breath testing, with significantly increased results. This recognizes that driving on Canadian roads and highways is a privilege, and not a right. Random testing of drivers is a reasonable and efficient measure to deal with a serious public safety concern. It is no more inconvenient to submit to a random test on our roadways than to be screened and searched at airports, public buildings, and public events.

The fifth is extending the presumption of temporality. This would enable evidentiary breath and blood samples taken within three hours of the alleged impaired driving offence to be admissible as evidence of the accused person's blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of the offence.

In 1999 the Criminal Code was amended to increase from two to three hours the time period within which the police could demand evidentiary breath and blood samples from suspected impaired drivers. However, Parliament failed to make any corresponding amendments to the presumptions of temporality. Consequently, the breath and blood analyses are still only presumed to reflect the suspect's BAC at the time of the alleged offence, if the samples are taken within two hours.

The time constraints under the criminal code can be a problem for a police officer if the arrest occurred in a rural area or on a busy night, or if the officer was delayed in assisting crash victims or securing an accident scene.

The presumptions relieve the prosecutor of the time-consuming and costly obligation of calling a toxicologist in each impaired driving case. A prosecutor who wishes to introduce samples taken outside of the limit must still call a toxicologist to testify. Given the time, expense and complexity of obtaining such evidence, the charges will most likely be withdrawn except in cases involving death and serious injury.

The sixth is authorizing police to videotape field sobriety and drug recognition tests. Where practical, police should have the authority to videotape and submit, as evidence, the testing of impaired drivers. Many police agencies have found that the use of such technology assists police in demonstrating the demeanour, behaviour and condition of an accused person. It reduces the potential for frivolous public complaints and reduces the potential for dispute over test results.

In conclusion, impaired driving is not an accident, but a serious crime with tragic consequences. Canada requires a coordinated and integrated approach, involving the federal government, provincial governments, and all stakeholders in the justice system.

Thank you.

Criminal Code

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly to Bill C-13. This bill is similar to Bill C-23, which was debated in the House.

I may be a rookie here but I remember Bill C-23 very well. We were in favour of the bill but the government decided to dissolve Parliament. So here we are, debating the same bill all over again, except that the number has changed.

The context is fairly important as we start, Bill C-13 is really Bill C-23. It contains so many important new aspects to make our criminal justice system work more equitably and to modernize it. It is why I was proud as a member of the Liberal justice team and as a member of the Liberal justice committee team to approve it and to send it on for eventual approval and royal assent.

Alas, the Prime Minister and his team decided that they were afraid of the environment. Their new Minister of the Environment had failed so miserably to act on the environment that they had to scuttle the whole Parliament because they were afraid of a couple of bills that might change things. In that mess, in that melee unfortunately, this good justice bill was killed and had to be reintroduced again.

One might ask, what difference does it make? It makes a difference to people who care about the criminal justice system. It may not mean a lot to people, but one of the biggest things we could have done in the last two years that I have been here would have been to modernize and make more effectual our criminal justice system, to move the maximum fine to be imposed for any summary conviction offence from $2,000 to $10,000.

A $2,000 fine is within the means of many people, but a $10,000 fine for a serious summary conviction offence, that does not warrant jail time, is a serious fine and might very well have a deterrent effect on those type of crimes for which a fine is appropriate.

There were many other amendments, which could be in effect and the law in the country now, that were just simply thrown away.

Language rights are very important in my province of New Brunswick which is officially a bilingual province. I represent the city of Moncton, which is an officially bilingual city. This is bread and butter for New Brunswick politicians. It is disturbing to me that the parliamentary secretary, when asked why Bill C-23, which contained many provisions to improve the delivery of justice services in both official languages was not given the priority of other bills, turned his answer to Bill C-2 and the tackling violent crime bill.

I asked why Bill C-23, which everybody agreed upon, was given second shrift to Bill C-2 and of course why was Bill C-2 killed?

This love child of the Conservative justice agenda, why was it killed by the Prime Minister? Was he so afraid of other bills which showed the incompetency of his own ministers?

It seems shocking to me. It included: Bill C-10, involving mandatory minimums which was a bill improved upon at committee and which had passed the House; Bill C-22, which modernized issues surrounding the age of consent and the age of protection, and provided for the first time a close in age exemption which made the bill very palatable in protecting young people; Bill C-32, for which Mothers Against Drunk Driving had been clamouring for some time; and, Bill C-35, a reverse onus on bail provisions which in effect codified the existing treatment of the law by jurists in the country, jurists who are exceptional jurists.

I have said this for two years. It seems like I just got here but I am here again defending judges and saying that they were enacting the provisions of Bill C-35 long before we had to make it law. Finally, there was Bill C-27, with respect to dangerous offenders.

Those were all bills that were moved along and would be law now had the government not pulled the plug on its own agenda. It euthanized its own criminal justice program.

In light of the Conservative vote on the capital punishment issue today, it is not surprising that Conservative members believe in terminating things. They have terminated their own hopes and dreams for criminal justice.

However, we want to move Bill C-23 along, which is now Bill C-13. It is an important bill that will deliver a lot of valuable aspects to the criminal justice system.

However, as I move to what is probably bread and butter for me as a New Brunswick politician, the language of the accused, I want to highlight what the bill will do and what it has done in the past. It is important to note the existing context.

At the request of the accused, a judge will order that the accused be granted a preliminary inquiry, a pre-trial procedure, and trial before a judge without jury, or judge with jury, who speak the official language, one or the other, which may be the language of the accused.

If the accused speaks neither English nor French, a judge will order that the accused be granted a preliminary inquiry or trial, without a judge and jury, who speak the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony. The court is also required to provide interpretation services. That is the existing set of laws.

What Bill C-13 does to improve upon that, in clause 18 of the original bill, is to suggest that once the accused appears in court, the judge is required to advise him or her of the right to trial in the official language of his or her choice, but this requirement, as it exists now, is only if the accused is not represented by counsel.

What Bill C-13 does, which Bill C-23 did and which we all agree on, is take away the issue of representation and says that the judge must advise the accused, whether represented or not, it was a false barrier, to his or her right to have a trial in the language of his or her own choice. That was a good change and it leads me into some of my further debate points when I say that the judge was required to advise the accused of his or her languages rights.

I know the member for Beauséjour is a member of the bar. He is experienced in certain criminal proceedings and would know, coming from a francophone milieu, that it is critically important that the gatekeeper for language rights in that context, the provincial court judge in most instances, has that positive duty to inform a judge of his or her right to a trial in the language of his or her choice. It is important to know that the judge is already doing that.

With respect to preliminary inquiries and the trial in both official languages, clauses 18 and 21 changed it so that they became more accessible. Trials in the proper language of the accused, either French or English, would be improved by this bill.

I might add, as an aside, that the translation of documents would be ameliorated certainly by these amendments and we are all in favour of that.

I guess where the rubber hits the road is what to do with the amendments presented by the Senate. My friend, the parliamentary secretary, discussed at length some of the amendments, and I want to counter on the two on which we might have a more elaborate discussion.

We know that this bill is aimed at modernizing our criminal justice system and making it more effective. That goes without saying. My party had indicated that it would support the passage of this bill when it was first introduced before prorogation. It was the bill that I mentioned earlier, Bill C-23.

In the context of this modernization, it is important that the rights of all Canadians be respected with regard to the use of official languages in court proceedings.

Canadians, particularly those in minority language situations, know they have certain rights under the Criminal Code, but it is the federal government's responsibility, and I suggest our responsibility as lawmakers, to ensure the application of those rights is clear and that the judicial process is not delayed.

The way the government presented its view of language rights in Bill C-13, a justice of the peace or court judge would only be charged with finding some way to ensure that accused persons are informed of their language rights. That is really not enough.

One of the amendments that we proposed should be supported. We are in argument with the government on this, at least according to the parliamentary secretary's speech. It is important to say from the outset that the judge already has a duty to advise the accused of his or her rights. The language says that the judge must ensure that the accused knows of this option.

I have witnessed many first appearances and I am very confident in the ability of our judges to advise accused persons of their rights. It is commonly done throughout the province of New Brunswick and in any federally appointed court system where official languages are important.

The amendment proposed by the Senate would ensure that the federal government takes on its responsibilities through its agents to inform any accused persons of their right to proceed in the official language they understand. The Senate amendment simply takes out any potential middleman in the administration of justice. The judge would inform the accused of his or her rights.

I do not think that it is an undue burden for a judge. If there is clear communication during court proceedings, we are simply providing for clear access to justice for all those involved. It falls in line with our democratic society's pledge to have an expedient judicial process and it takes out the aspect of appeal.

I think the government wants efficacious legislation but I cannot be sure sometimes because some of the legislation it presents is so poorly written and so hastily delivered, only for the purpose of a television spot on the news, it is not always clear. In this case, however, if the government would only support this Senate amendment, it could have efficacious and fair language policy through the Criminal Code.

Sadly, the other Senate amendment respecting the reporting on official language requests is not one that the opposition can support. We cannot agree with it because it would require the Minister of Justice to report on the language of proceeding or testimony in criminal matters across this country.

There can be no way that all attorneys general in all provinces and in all territories would have the means to uniformly report on this. As the parliamentary secretary rightly commented, it is not the minister's mandate. In saying this, I do not mean that the Minister of Justice is not competent. I mean that he is not competent in the law to do such reporting. For that reason, we support the government in its opposition to that Senate amendment.

I understand the Senate's concern with ensuring that there is accountability in respecting language rights but we can surely do a more effective job in ensuring this by using the other resources that are in the community.

I know well-known jurists and hard-working jurists in my own province.

They are Sacha D. Morisset and Christian Michaud, who are both members of the Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick. They often highlight the statistics with regard to French language trials in our province. If it can be done in New Brunswick, I am sure it can be done in Canada.

Again, we do not support that Senate amendment.

In short, we are very happy to get moving with this important legislation. We are happy the Senate took the time to improve the bill by suggesting that judges, who are the gatekeepers in our system, have the duty to inform an accused of his or her rights respecting language in this country.

It is bedrock in this community and this country that we offer services in both languages with respect, at least, to the Criminal Code of Canada and the criminal justice system.

On this one amendment from the Senate, I urge members of the government to agree with the Senate and with the Liberal Party and its justice team that it will make the situation with respect to the delivery of language rights in this instance a much better thing.

I am very proud to suggest that we support the bill and one of the amendments suggested by the Senate, which is one of the two that are excluded from the government's list in the final motion.

I want to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words “agrees with Amendments No. 2, 4, 5 and 6” and substituting therefore the words “agrees with Amendments No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6” and by deleting the paragraph commencing with the words “disagrees with Amendment No. 1”.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and speak to this motion. I should say at the outset that I fear this motion is more about not getting back to the debate on Bill C-28 than it is about the Fisheries Act, but whether that is the case or not, I always appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of a new, modernized Fisheries Act which is what Bill C-32 is about.

Today's motion though is about whether we should send the bill directly to committee. In reality we are wasting valuable time debating this motion when we should be able to get up in the second reading debate and talk about the merits of Bill C-32 and get it on the record. That is what we would like to do as the government.

Bill C-32 is good legislation. It will make a significant and positive difference to the future of fish and fish habitat in this country, to fishing and the fisheries and to those who rely on it for their livelihood. Therefore, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.