Lloyd St. Amand

[Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Stephanie Hermans from Brantford.

In August of this year, Stephanie swam across Lake Ontario, a distance of 30 miles. Many persons attempt the swim, but only one in three succeeds.

Stephanie succeeded in magnificent fashion, completing the swim in only 18 hours. More impressive is the fact that her swim was all about helping others. She raised $7,500 for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

Stephanie's twin sister Sarah, who suffers from Type 1 diabetes, was present for Stephanie's swim, as were other justifiably proud family members.

Stephanie is a credit to her family, a credit to her community and a credit to her country. As Winston Churchill said, “We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give”.

I would like to thank Stephanie for what she has given to others.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the typically eloquent and thoughtful speech of my hon. colleague from Charlottetown. I think I express the hope of everyone here vis-à-vis the activation of his life insurance that it is 40 years or 50 years distant and not imminent.

With respect to special advocates and the suggestion in my colleague's speech that perhaps there are components of the bill that ideally would be buttressed, would his concerns with that portion of the bill be substantially alleviated if there were strict guarantees for adequate funding for the special advocates, and similarly, strict guarantees that any and all information required by the special advocate would be forthcoming within a 24 hour basis so that there would be some time for the advocate to properly represent the detainee?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Clearly he differs with our party. We are of the view that legislation of this type, or of this ilk, is needed in the national security interests.

With respect to the special advocates, the member made some comparison to the British model. I will concede there are some who have suggested that the special advocate system is basically paying mere lip service to the right of anyone detained to have effective representation. What is it about the special advocate system that troubles him so greatly?

[Canada Evidence Act, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, like my Bloc colleague across the way, the mover of the bill, I am very pleased to join in this debate and speak on Bill C-426, which is, as we have heard, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act.

The substance of this bill is the protection of the confidentiality of journalistic sources. It would, in short, allow journalists to refuse to disclose information or a record which has not been published unless that information or that record is of vital importance and could not otherwise be produced in evidence in any other fashion.

The bill, as I read it, would also stipulate conditions which must be met or complied with before a judge issues a search warrant to obtain information or records in the exclusive possession of a journalist.

The bill would also allow journalists to refuse to disclose the source of the information which they gather, write, produce or otherwise disseminate to the public through any media and to further refuse to disclose any information or document that could identify a source or sources.

However, a judge would have at his or her discretion the authority to order a journalist to disclose the source of the information if that judge considered the information or the data to be in the greater interest of the public.

I am inclined to vote in favour of the bill at least going to committee stage, with the expectation that the committee members would see fit to amend the bill when they scrutinize it.

There have been various court decisions on this topic. Generally, Canadian courts have followed the ruling in a decision from Great Britain, cited as Attorney-General v. Mulholland. The nub of that decision is that journalists should only be required to reveal information received from a source in confidence when it can be demonstrated that the information is relevant and necessary in order for the case to be resolved.

Closer to home, one of the best known cases on the issue of journalistic freedom is the case involving the Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill. Members of the House will recall that Ms. O'Neill, a journalist writing for the Ottawa Citizen, wrote an article on November 8, 2003 about Maher Arar, the Syrian-born Canadian citizen whom American authorities arrested and wrongly deported to Syria.

In January 2004, some several weeks after her article, the RCMP obtained two search warrants to search Ms. O'Neill's home, as well as her office at the Ottawa Citizen. The warrants were issued by a justice of the peace in support of a criminal investigation into alleged violations of the Security of Information Act.

The searches of Ms. O'Neill's residence and office took place on January 21, 2004, and resulted in the seizure of certain documents and certain computer information. Needless to say, Ms. O'Neill did not agree to the searches taking place either at her home or at her office.

The matter found its way to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and an extensive hearing over several days took place in the late summer and early fall of 2006. The Superior Court Justice struck down various subsections of the Security of Information Act, ruling that the subsections violated both section 7 and section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We know that section 7 in particular deals with “the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived” of those rights “except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”.

In commenting on the subsections of the Security of Information Act, the justice held that the subsections were overly broad, arbitrary, vague, and gave the government an unfettered ability to protect whatever information it chose to classify as unauthorized for disclosure and to punish any violation by way of a criminal offence. In short, the justice ruled that the subsections were of no force and effect.

After the decision of the court, the federal government announced that it would not appeal the decision and that it would consider its options. In February 2007, the special Senate committee on the Anti-terrorism Act released a report recommending that the Security of Information Act be amended to narrow the scope of information for which disclosure is an offence.

As always, the issue is the proper balance to be struck between the public's right to know, broadly speaking, and the interest of the public with respect to security matters. Clearly, it is essential for the government to be able to prevent or deter the release of certain types of data in the interests of national security and that deterrence can and should include the imposition of criminal sanctions. But public discourse is a vital part of any democracy, as was expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1996, and I quote:

The freedom of individuals to discuss information about the institutions of government, their policies and practices, is crucial to any notion of democratic rule. The liberty to criticize and express dissenting views has long been thought to be a safeguard against state tyranny and corruption.

As the well-known French author, Albert Camus, said, “A free press can of course be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom it will never be anything but bad”.

In my view, Bill C-426 moves us further along with respect to the proper balance to be struck between journalistic freedom on the one hand, and the disclosure of information which is of critical importance and cannot be produced by any other means on the other hand.

Like the member opposite who spoke prior to me, amendments that I would like to see introduced at committee stage include a tighter or better definition of “journalist”. The definition of “journalist” as presently written in the bill is too broad and would undoubtedly be problematic. It is peculiar, however, that currently no federal or provincial legislation appears to define the term “journalist” nor does Canadian case law provide a consistent definition. Ideally, the committee will see fit to recommend an improved definition of the term “journalist”.

There are also a number of instances where the English wording of parts of the bill is weaker than the French wording. This situation can also be remedied through amendments at the committee stage.

Simply put, my inclination is to support the bill proceeding to committee in the hope and expectation that amendments will be made at that stage.

[Automobile Industry, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our auto industry is facing a crisis. The Conservative government is negotiating a free trade deal with South Korea that will have devastating impacts on the industry. This unfair deal will open the Canadian market to more imported vehicles while incredibly, not letting any Canadian made vehicles enter South Korea.

When will the government actually do something to support the auto sector and assist our Canadian auto workers?

[Manufacturing Sector, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Speech from the Throne made scant mention of the manufacturing sector and no mention at all of the auto sector. I am fearful that the Conservative government does not fully comprehend the consequences of its inaction with respect to these sectors.

Canada has lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs since 2002. According to research conducted by the Canadian Auto Workers, 30,000 more manufacturing jobs will be lost if Canada enters into a free trade agreement with Korea.

The Liberal Party will not support a Canada-Korea free trade agreement unless it eliminates existing trade barriers and provides true free market access to the Korean market.

A future Liberal government would be committed to a multilateral approach to free trade and would put Canada's long term economic interests first, including the interests of our very vital manufacturing sector.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, something that often escapes members of the New Democratic Party is that business creates wealth. The private sector goes a long way toward creating wealth. At times the member and her colleagues rather forget that simple lesson of economics.

The Liberal Party wishes to foster a competitive business climate in this country that will assist every single Canadian.

If the member wants to go back 10 years and talk about the Liberal record when the Liberals were in power, that is her prerogative, but frankly, we prefer as a party to look to the future. We prefer to move forward and not replay the past.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. The premise of her question is that governments have a responsibility to incrementally, slowly but surely, narrow the gap between those who have and those who have not.

There are many seniors who have not. They have not enough and they have no opportunity, because of their age, to better their situation. They have left the workforce on a permanent basis. I agree with the member that there has been no provision for seniors for many months.

Again, with the $14 billion surplus available to the Minister of Finance and the government, more could and certainly should be done for Canada's seniors.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, all four political parties have different sentiments regarding the Speech from the Throne. Canadians have said, overwhelmingly, that they do not want an election. The Liberal Party understands this and we will continue to make the government work, despite obvious Conservative attempts to orchestrate its own defeat.

Ontarians went to the polls less than two weeks ago. Saskatchewan will be voting in two weeks time and Newfoundlanders voted just two weeks ago today. Canadians are justifiably tired of elections and they want to see this Parliament work.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne and to voice some of my concerns with it, concerns on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Brant.

I will deal with the manufacturing sector. Although it was mentioned, albeit briefly, along with the forestry, fisheries and tourism sectors, I was troubled by the Prime Minister's failure to mention any specifics regarding a plan to support Canada's ever important manufacturing sector. As manufacturing jobs are being lost in Ontario and elsewhere across Canada, the Conservative government is doing virtually nothing to stop this very significant job loss crisis. I am fearful that the government does not fully comprehend the consequences of its inaction.

Canada has lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs since 2002 and real output in manufacturing is declining, not just employment. For instance, value added GDP is below its year 2000 peak. Some argue that manufacturing is simply becoming more efficient and that is why it is shedding jobs. In reality the entire sector is shrinking.

As a country, Canada is especially sensitive to exchange rate concerns since fully 90% of our exports go to the United States. We are thus much more vulnerable than Europe, Japan, China and India to changes in the international value of the U.S. dollar. With our dollar now at par with the U.S. dollar, the government must come to understand that reliance on a weak Canadian dollar is not a strategy. It is certainly not an effective strategy with respect to preserving Canada's manufacturing sector.

A manufacturing sector under pressure clearly affects the 2.1 million Canadians who work in the sector as well as their families. Job loss in this critical sector affects the millions more jobs that depend on manufacturing as the engine of our economy, especially in Ontario.

In my riding of Brant, with a population of some 130,000 individuals, the manufacturing sector is represented by six of the top ten employers. Therefore, I urge the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry to at least match what the Ontario Liberals are doing for the manufacturing sector.

Premier McGuinty's Liberals put together a $500 million package that attracted over $7 billion worth of new investment in the auto sector. The Ontario government also improved the tax credit available to businesses, which take on the important task of training of future skilled workers. This incentive is designed to reduce training costs in an effort to get more young people into skilled trade apprenticeship programs. Education sources confirm that students are lining up to enter the skilled trades, but have been unable to secure training positions for the essential hands-on portion of their programs.

Clearly the Ontario government is helping out.

How should the federal government? For starters, the federal government could adopt the 22 recommendations made by the House of Commons industry committee, including the key recommendation of a five year window for writing off capital investments at an accelerated rate.

The purpose of that window obviously is to encourage investment in the equipment needed to regain and enhance Canada's competitiveness. Instead, the Minister of Finance has reduced that window to just two years, not enough time for businesses to properly plan and three years less than the all-party committee itself recommended.

While Canada's manufacturing sector clearly struggles, the booming oil sands industry continues to enjoy a much more generous accelerated capital cost allowance, an advantage which will continue at least for the oil sands until 2015.

Many business leaders have justifiably called for an extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance for the manufacturing and processing industries. This is especially true with the Canadian dollar at par. It has never been more affordable for Canadian businesses to invest in new machinery and equipment.

Canada needs to create more investment, to create rising living standards, to create the jobs of tomorrow in the Canada of today, to create a competitive tax system, to create a true Canadian corporate advantage.

I was also bothered to hear virtually nothing in the Speech from the Throne about poverty. We need a plan to fight poverty. Poverty today for many Canadians is a reality, a reality that mocks the prosperity known by most Canadians. Today in Canada more than half a million of our senior citizens live in poverty.

The men and women who built this country deserve much better. Pension splitting I concede is of some assistance for seniors with partners, but what about those seniors without partners? What about the hundreds of thousands of single seniors? There is no mention whatsoever in the throne speech of anything that will help single seniors.

What about the disabled? It is to Canada's shame that over 50% of disabled individuals cannot find employment. These are individuals who through no fault of their own were born visually impaired, born hard of hearing, born physically disabled. Surely in arguably the fairest, freest, finest country on earth everyone without exception deserves a chance, deserves an opportunity, deserves the affirmation and the self-esteem which accompanies a job, which accompanies a place in the workforce.

For Canadians who do not face physical challenges, the unemployment rate is around 6% or 7%. For Canadians with disabilities, the unemployment rate is in excess of 50%. This is shameful. There is no mention in the throne speech about incentives for corporations or businesses to hire individuals with disabilities.

I commend the Minister of Finance for a provision with respect to severely disabled children, but those are the children. What about disabled adults in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s who want to work but have no opportunities presented to them? I think it is time with a $14 billion surplus that this country come to the aid of those individuals who have disabilities.

I appreciated this opportunity to speak in the debate on the Speech from the Throne.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite in his question asked about understanding and his perception was that my colleague the member for Etobicoke North lacked understanding on the issue. In my view the member for Etobicoke North certainly understands the issue.

What I do not understand is the logic, if it exists, or the rationale in the minds of gun owners regarding registering their guns. As I understand it, they have no difficulty becoming licensed operators of vehicles. They have no difficulty with the principle of registering however many vehicles they may own. These same individuals have no difficulty becoming licensed gun owners. But the logic ends there. They have difficulty seeing the wisdom of having each gun registered. I am wondering if there is in fact any logic or rationale in their viewpoint?