Sue Barnes

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 30th, 2007]

With regard to the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC): (a) how many programs will receive funding from the NCPC in 2007; (b) how many programs will receive funding from the NCPC in 2008; (c) what is the breakdown for crime prevention funding per riding for 2007; and (d) what is the proposed funding allocation per riding for 2008?

[Airbus, November 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the minister claims he does not have the power to effect the surrender order to send Mr. Schreiber to Germany. If that is true, by what power did the minister act to prevent Schreiber being shipped to Germany before December 1?

Where is that authority in the law, and if it can be used for December 1, why can it not also be used to keep Schreiber in Canada until he testifies at a public inquiry? If the minister did it once, why not again, why not for the public inquiry?

[Airbus, November 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice showed utter contempt for Parliament when he refused to use the power clearly available to him and to him alone under the Extradition Act. Just think of that. Parliament had to trump the Minister of Justice to ensure the appearance of Karlheinz Schreiber before the ethics committee.

After the ethics committee is done, what assurance is there that Mr. Schreiber will stay in Canada to appear before a public inquiry? Will the minister do his duty, or is he determined to silence Schreiber and ship him out of the country before the public inquiry can be held?

[Justice, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Bashir Makhtal, a Canadian citizen, has been held in Ethiopia since January. He is potentially facing the death penalty and is allegedly being tortured. His family has received no assistance from the government and has launched a lawsuit against the government of Ethiopia on their own.

The Minister of Justice claims Canada still supports the UN's death penalty moratorium. Will Mr. Makhtal be caught up in the Conservative government's betrayal of the principle of the death penalty?

[Justice, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and the government has decided that Canada would only seek clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty abroad on a case by case basis, when it suits them.

I would like to ask the government: Will it seek clemency for Chen Naizhi, a Canadian citizen convicted in China, who faces a death sentence for car smuggling?

How can the government have any credibility on this issue after choosing not to seek clemency for a Canadian citizen now facing the death penalty in Montana?

[Canada Evidence Act, November 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-426. I believe that our colleague from the constituency of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin has put much effort into his research on this bill.

The bill is not long, but I think the content of the bill is something that has to be discussed here in Canada at this time. There seems to be a body of case law, but it is not a complete body of case law covering every situation. This is an issue that is going to be with us not only here in Canada but in other jurisdictions around the world.

In fact, the author of this bill tells us that there are other countries in Europe and states in the country to the south of us that have worked hard to enshrine this concept of journalistic protection either inside their legislative works or, as in Sweden, inside a constitutional body of work.

I am always troubled by these bills that try to attempt to answer the big questions of the day. Unlike legislation put forward by a government, on which there should be wide consultation, we have here work compiled on the research, a compilation of case law, that influences different aspects of how it will affect those who are working to have a free press in this country.

I know we all value the free press in this country, although I think sometimes that we do not value it enough, especially the investigative journalism that highlights some of the things we might never hear about without journalists having confidential sources. I also believe that confidential sources are not a substitute for good police investigative work.

However, like other members in the House, I do not even know the principal stakeholders' viewpoint on this piece of legislation, that is, the journalists. I believe that is why we have a committee structure. In committee, we can do our best work in hearing from stakeholder groups, those in favour of a piece of legislation such as this which codifies certain elements of the jurisprudence, some parts even codified by the Supreme Court of Canada, and we also can hear the negative voices, the other side of the issue, who may be concerned about the definitions section on journalism.

Everything seems to be encapsulated, even though it may not be the author's intent to go from a blog writer to a new media source. When I grew up, newspapers were printed newspapers, but online newspapers in my jurisdiction and constituency now enjoy a greater readership than the printed word. We are in a changing time with our media consumption.

I think there is value in sending this bill to committee. I am not sure that I would support this bill at the final stage, but debate has to be heard. I applaud my colleague from the Bloc for spending the time on this and compiling all of the research in all of the various jurisdictions. I look forward to hearing about that research at a later date if this bill passes in the House.

The profession of journalism is vital in a democratic society, I believe, and this is, on balance, a commendable effort to support journalism as a profession. However, it also opens us up to questions and concerns about the balance with protection of sources. I know the member has tried in his various subclauses to put the balance of what is in the public interest into the legislation, but how do we define that? Is it public safety and security interests? What is the definition of “public interest”?

I think there are many times when search warrants are being granted and executed when we should be more cautious and circumspect. I like the fact that in this bill the judge has a right to talk about journalistic protections even if the journalist does not. I think that shows from the author's perspective that it is a public interest that is being defended and not a journalistic one. It is important to note that difference of interpretation in this bill.

We have a situation with this bill that a very interesting and important subject has been addressed in a private member's bill. There are issues. I have read in Hansard some of the parliamentary secretaries' input into this, and they seem to have more concerns than I do at this stage of the game.

I would suggest it would be incumbent upon the justice department officials, knowing that this bill probably will go to committee, to work on some friendly amendments with respect to those areas that could be a void in the legislative process. Either that or they should come to committee and outline why this path should not be followed. Really, it just takes the case law and adds a few parts and, in the author's opinion, protections to an area that will not go away.

We have had many cases and there has been debate about this issue. For instance, would we protect a source that has lied and caused a great deal of problems? Would we protect every source? Would we protect a source, as the bill purports to do, of material that has been used in an investigation, material that is not public? These are all questions.

It is important that we consider the bill. It is very important to acknowledge the hard work and honest effort that has been put into the bill. I applaud the member, because I have worked with him many times in committees and I know his efforts are sincere. For that reason, I would like to have the benefit of more of the stakeholders' input before I make my final decision, but I will vote to send the bill to committee for further work.

[Rights of the Child, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child in May 1990 and ratified it on December 13, 1991. The convention sets out fundamental rights to protect all children and affirms a child's right to survival, to be protected from harm, abuse and exploitation.

As today is the World Day for Prevention of Child Abuse, I urge the government to commit to do more to protect Canada's children and to live up to the convention signed nearly 18 years ago.

The government must also commit to address the first nations child welfare crisis. The number of first nations children affected is growing and the government response to date has been dismal. The government prefers to deny and assign blame elsewhere.

How sad that the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada have filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission regarding the lack of funding for first nations child welfare.

This is unacceptable. The government must act now. I urge it to do so.

[Airbus, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that certainly did not answer the question.

The list that the Prime Minister released on the old Canadian Alliance website is missing about 95% of the names. That is not a disclosure. The names on that 2002 donor list are only a portion of those who contributed to his campaign. It is only a list of those people who consented to have their names published.

Canadians deserve to know if the Prime Minister was bankrolled by anyone involved in the Schreiber affair. When will the Prime Minister make the full donor list public?

[Airbus, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to have all the facts with regard to the Schreiber affair. If anyone involved in the Schreiber file has made contributions to the Prime Minister's 2002 leadership campaign, Canadians deserve to know, but the Prime Minister never revealed all his donors.

Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the public inquiry will examine all donations made by Mr. Schreiber to the Conservative Party, its predecessor parties, and all of the numerous leadership campaigns of those parties?

[Petitions, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to present a petition to the Government of Canada about the income trust broken promise on this anniversary date, one year ago.

The petitioners remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts but that he recklessly broke that promise by imposing a 31.5% punitive tax, which permanently wiped out over $25 billion of the hard-earned retirement savings of over two million Canadians, particularly seniors.

This particular petition has been signed by various Canadians who reside in British Columbia and Ontario and I present it to the House.