Blair Wilson

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is a little rich listening to the Conservative member on the opposite side lecture the House on civil liberties when he is now informing the government that is keeping these men incarcerated.

I would also like to educate the member a little with respect to the different avenues that are available to the minister and the government right now. We are holding these three men indefinitely in an institution. If he does not understand the human rights and social aspects of it, maybe Conservative members can understand the economic impact. I am talking their language now when I talk about the economic impact. These three men are being incarcerated indefinitely at a cost to the taxpayer of how much? It is costing the taxpayers $2 million a year right now.

Why do we not do something better? Why do we not release these men under house arrest? We can put GPS tags on them, release them on their own recognizance and have their families look after them, just like we have done previously with two other individuals who were held under security certificates. They have been released and are now under house arrest. Who is bearing the cost of that? They and their families are.

If the Conservative government does not understand the impact of human rights violations, they may understand the economics of it and stop paying $2 million a year to house these three men when they could be put under house arrest and be monitored just as well.

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member has gone to the crux of the matter. Here is the issue that we have to deal with right now. The men are being held as detainees without being able to see the evidence against them, without being able to have their lawyer see the evidence against them, and without being charged of any crime under the Criminal Code.

The government of the day could charge these individuals under the Criminal Code. These detainees could be charged and taken into court and allow the evidence to be heard and be given the same rights that all of us as Canadians enjoy. There is an inequality in the way that this policy is being enacted. That is one of the keys to it.

The minister said that this is a three sided prison. It is not a three sided prison. That is hogwash. These men are being held for an indefinite period of time and if they choose to go back to Syria and Egypt, they will most definitely face torture and their lives will most definitely be at risk.

The minister across knows this full well. The minister stood in the House and ranted and raved against Maher Arar, calling him a terrorist. We all know where that ended up. It has cost the taxpayers of Canada $10.5 million. I fear that the action that the minister is taking right now could very well cost taxpayers more money.

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, before I start I want to say how deeply disturbed I am with the words of the minister and the tack he has taken with respect of the lack of seriousness of the case at the correctional institute which is before us. He talked a little bit like I was watching The Shopping Channel, discussing bedrooms and tables and chairs. I do not think he fully appreciates or understands the seriousness of the matter before us.

The immigration committee, which I am proud a member of, visited these three men who are in dire straits, in dire consequences. They have been on a hunger strike now for over 80 days. The men have lost upwards of 45 to 50 pounds. Their lives are in jeopardy and that is one of the main reasons why the committee chose to travel by bus to Kingston to discuss the situation with these men, to discuss the problems they have with respect to their hunger strike, and to talk to the correctional officers and management of that facility to see how we can break this impasse.

This debate in the House of Commons and before Canadians is part and parcel of doing just that, of breaking the impasse. It is to try to save the lives of three men and at the same time try to adjust the justice system in Canada.

If I break down the issue and the motion before us, two basic issues come to light. One of the issues that is not being specifically discussed at the Kingston correctional holding facility is the issue of fairness of the security certificates. These three men are not dealing with the issue of the security certificates per se, they are dealing with the conditions they are being held in.

Parliament and Canadians want us to open up this debate in order to talk about some things of substance. The substantive issue is the fairness of the security certificates and how it balances the rights of the individual with the safety of the collective society.

We have had these men incarcerated for six and a half years, two years of which some of these men were held in solitary confinement. The immigration committee visited Kingston last October and actually went into the cells that some of these men were held in solitary confinement and, Mr. Speaker, you would not want to spend five minutes in solitary confinement in the cells that we witnessed, let alone two years.

The question is one of balancing the civil liberties of individuals and our human rights versus the safety of Canadians. These men have been held for six and a half years without being charged of any criminal offence, nor have they been convicted of any crimes.

The third important issue to remember is that they are being held indefinitely without knowing the evidence the government may or may not have on them. So they are not, nor are their lawyers, privy to the qualitative nature or the quantitative nature of the evidence against them, yet they are being held indefinitely in this institution.

We can argue if our system is fair and just when we have a law on the books that allows the minister to incarcerate three individuals for six and a half years without them being charged of any offence, without knowing any of the evidence against them. We can make that system much better and I do not know why the Conservative government or the minister is dragging their heels on this. Perhaps it is to garner favour with the Bush administration and to continue to champion against human rights and against Canadians. But the system can be made better.

The immigration committee has put recommendations out there. We have heard witnesses. One of them is to put a special prosecutor in place so that there is a mechanism by which those who have been accused can actually see and test the evidence against them. Right now there is no ability for these three men to test the evidence against them. I would call on the minister to initiate changes, to make the system better, and to make it safer for Canadians and balance the rights of individuals.

I will speak more to the point on the issue before us today relating to the conditions of the detainees. We were there and they are in dire straits. They have a number of grievances they have filed with the process.

The difficulty that they have, though, is that they are caught in between. They are not criminals on the one hand. They are being held through the immigration process as detainees. They are not criminals. They are detainees and because of that Canada has to deal with them in a different way.

We have to decide, are we going to hold them in maximum security, minimum security or medium security? The question right now is: How is this process managed? I would say that the minister is managing it irresponsibly because he is not in tune to the issues of the day and the problems that these men have.

I could list a few of the problems. They are in the motion here before us today. One problem is that the detainees are not allowed to have close family visits. Another one is that they are not allowed to have access to the canteen facilities. A third problem is that they are subject to daily head counts. My goodness, there are three of them in this cell. Any guard or any person going in there can count, “one, two, three” and realize that they are there. Yet, they are subject to daily head counts. Another grievance is that they are not being allowed to practise their religious beliefs. It goes on and on.

When I spoke to these three men I said that I did not want to try and deal with each one of their grievances one at a time. They have a list of 20 to 25 grievances. I believe a better approach is to take a systemic solution to what we have here. The problem we have is that there is no grievance mechanism for these men to deal with. The same shoe is on the management and staff there. They are used to maximum security penitentiaries where they deal with things one way. This is a new situation that requires new policies and procedures.

A new policy and procedure that we have put forward to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is that an ombudsman be put in place to hear the grievances of these three men and deal with the issues one at a time as they come up. It is a common sense solution to a problem.

There are three men that are on a hunger strike right now because they cannot exercise their religious freedom, visit with their families, and have the other rights and privileges that normal prisoners who have been charged with crimes are allowed. We have a situation here that is untenable. We have to work as parliamentarians in the House of Commons to deal specifically with the solutions that are at hand.

The motion before the House deals with that solution. I would urge members from all parties to vote in favour of this motion and deal with the solutions to this problem.

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the two issues the hon. member raised are very important. One is enumeration, and we have to do a much better job of that on our first nations reserves. I have three reserves in my riding, the Squamish First Nation, the Sliammon First Nation and the Sechelt First Nation.

Between 2004 and 2006, the voter turnout in those areas has increased. My wife and I have spent a lot of time knocking on doors there, talking to people in their homes. They are very anxious and energized to get involved in the electoral process.

The changes the bill puts forward, however, would require that the administration of the bill would accept first nations status cards as adequate identification. With the exception of what the hon. member said, these status cards do have picture identification, so they would be acceptable from the standpoint of picture identification on their card. He should check with his area.

The experiences of first nations voters in Canada differ from coast to coast to coast. The bill is trying to deal with some of the general problems that we have in a lot of our urban areas as well as some of the rural areas. The bill would help considerably in voter remuneration and cut down on voter fraud.

As I mentioned briefly, when I was discussing it, one of the major concerns on the voter fraud was in the riding of Trinity—Spadina and the fact over 10,000 citizens were signed up on the day of the election, which is incredibly hard to believe that 10,000 people would come out and would be serially vouched on that day. I understand as well that the Chief Electoral Officer has instigated an audit and is reviewing that right now, and we will see if he gets to the bottom of it.

However, the difficulty is that unless there is some teeth in the legislation, there will be difficulty in auditing it.

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-31, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

Canada is a great democracy. We have a long tradition of being one of the most open, fair and inclusive democracies in the world. To honour that tradition, though, we must continually strive to improve both the integrity of our electoral process and its accessibility. By so doing, we allow ordinary Canadians the opportunity to exercise their right to vote easily and with confidence.

This bill, I believe, aims to further these goals. It is based on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the report, “Improving the Integrity of the Electoral Process: Recommendations for Legislative Change”. This report, in turn, was based in part on recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer.

The bill would amend the Canada Elections Act to improve the integrity of the electoral process by reducing the opportunity for electoral fraud or for error. It would require that, before voting, electors must provide one piece of government issued photo identification that shows their name and address, or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer that shows their name and address , or they can also take an oath and they may be vouched for by one other elector who has photo identification from that riding.

These changes would do much to improve the consistency of our electoral process. Too often the identification rules have been applied in an inconsistent manner, unfairly placing demands on some citizens that others do not have to meet.

In the last election alone, I encountered several instances of inconsistent behaviour. For instance, anecdotal reports from scrutineers in my riding suggested that voters were rarely challenged for identification in one area of my riding but continually challenged in other areas. At least one voter in the latter area had to go home to get her identification.

This inconsistency is a product of our current rules which only require that identification be checked when an electoral officer, the candidate or a candidate's representative has reason to doubt the identity of an individual wanting to vote. It is regrettable when different citizens are held to different standards across our country, something that is all too possible under our current state of affairs.

I would also like to stress that the vouching procedure has been retained. Anyone who has no suitable identification can still be vouched for by another person with valid identification, ensuring that none of Canada's vulnerable population will be denied the right to vote.

The new rules, however, also introduced safeguards against serial vouching by allowing each elector to only vouch for one person and to not allow vouching by electors who have been vouched for before. This would stop an abuse that has been experienced around Canada.

One instance I know of, on which I have heard consistent complaints, is in the riding of Trinity—Spadina where over 10,000 new voters were registered on election day. It is almost inconceivable that 10,000 people in one riding would be vouched for on a serial basis. These are the types of potential abuses that this legislation is aiming to stop.

The bill would also amend the Canadian Elections Act to make operational changes to improve the accuracy of the National Register of Electors. It would facilitate voting and enhance communications with the electorate. It would amend the Public Service Employment Act to permit the Public Service Commission to make regulations that would now extend to the maximum term of employment of casual workers. These changes are all welcome.

It is also pleasing to see a practical approach to interprovincial cooperation in these changes. Currently, the act permits the sharing of information between provincial governments and Elections Canada. However, the Chief Electoral Officer can only share data in the registry. He cannot share source or preliminary data or other data that is not incorporated in the registry itself. Both the Chief Electoral Officer and the committee have recommended that he should be able to share all data and, accordingly, the bill would expand the scope of data that is permitted to be exchanged.

The bill also would allow a common sense improvement to the information collected by the Canada Revenue Agency. It would create a citizenship box on the tax returns so that taxpaying residents who are citizens of other countries do not end up on our electoral rolls as they still do today.

Bill C-31 would also allow the Canada Revenue Agency to share information about deceased electors, ensuring that the deceased do not end up on our voters list.

While the government did not incorporate all of the committee's recommendations into the bill, it stated that when it did not accept these recommendations it had a fundamental disagreement with principle, items required further study or that we had received inadequate testimony that had been unable to reach a definitive decision during the committee proceedings.

A major concern of the Liberal members of the committee is to ensure that the bill allows aboriginal status identification to be deemed acceptable proof for voting purposes. Government officials have clarified that the text of the bill requires government issued photo ID with an address or government issued photo ID without an address. This would include band status cards but they would need to be accompanied by a letter from the band council or something, such as a phone bill, that would have the person's number, name and address to corroborate the claim that he or she was indeed eligible to vote in a specific riding.

My riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country is home to a large aboriginal population. It is unfortunate that the turnout in polls in the first nations community in my riding is well below the average for the riding as a whole. As parliamentarians, we must work to improve their participation and it would be irresponsible to put an unjustified obstacle in their way. First nations members should be able to use their aboriginal identification to vote, full stop.

On this side of the House, the Liberal Party supports changes to the Canada Elections Act to protect against the likelihood of voter fraud and misrepresentation. We need to ensure that aboriginal photo identification is an acceptable form of voter identification. We also support strengthening the enumeration process, particularly on reserve communities and other areas of low voter enumeration.

A photo identification is essential because on election day it would allow the volunteers and the workers at Election Canada to facilitate Canadians who have the right to vote and ensure no mistakes or voter fraud are involved in what we know is an outstanding electoral system. We need adequate safeguards to ensure that eligible Canadians are able to vote, to prevent fraud and to ensure that no one is impeded in his or her ability to vote.

The bill achieves these aims and ensures the integrity of the Canadian electoral process.

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Prime Minister sees the charter as an impediment to his goal, which he made public in writing last July, of undermining native based fisheries. The Prime Minister has stood by in silence while the member for Delta—Richmond East campaigns aggressively against new treaties that give first nations access to the Fraser River fishery. At the same time, he slams the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for negotiating the deals.

My question is straightforward. Who does the Prime Minister stand behind, the member of Parliament who refuses to recognize these constitutional rights, or his minister who wants to uphold them? Which is it?

[National Strategy for the Treatment of Autism Act, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, in recent weeks this House has reflected extensively on what it means to be Canadian, yet regardless of our sociological or cultural differences, all Canadians share common values on what kind of country we have worked so hard to create together, a country where each and every citizen has an equal chance to make the most of the great opportunities here in Canada.

All Canadians share the same values and want a country where everyone has an equal chance to seize the wonderful opportunities here in Canada.

We have had remarkable success, yet today we are failing over 300,000 Canadians. Every 166th child born in Canada is afflicted by autism spectrum disorder. Either those children are left unable to function in society or their families face a crushing financial burden, and all the while our universal health care system is silent to this suffering. Canada has neglected autism for too long and the time has come to begin to address it.

Autism affects more than 3,000 Canadians. We have long neglected autism, and the time has come to address this problem.

Autism has a devastating effect on a child's quality of life. I think all members can agree on that.

Autism is a neurological disorder that causes developmental disability. It affects the way the brain functions, creating difficulties in communication and social interaction and unusual patterns of behaviour, activity and interests. Its symptoms, as we know, vary widely. Some autistic children display repetitive behaviour. Others suffer self-inflicted injuries. Some cannot even speak and must communicate through the use of computers and full time support staff in schools.

Autism not only affects the individual, but also the individual's family, friends and caregivers who must cope with the individual's difficult childhood.

There is hope for these children. Applied behavioural analysis and intensive behavioural intervention have been shown to dramatically improve social and intellectual functioning of autistic children and thereby their quality of life.

It is critical to get these children the treatment that is required as soon as possible, as soon as they are diagnosed in their formative years. Proper treatment gives autistic children the chance they deserve to enjoy all the joys and opportunities that other children do.

Autism has a devastating effect on a child's quality of life. Autism affects not only the individual, but also the individual's family, friends and caregivers. But there is hope. Some treatments are producing dramatic results. With help, these autistic children can have the same opportunities as other Canadian children.

While the courts have rejected the idea that governments have a legal obligation to treat autism, we parliamentarians here in this House have a moral duty to uphold the promise of all those who have worked to build our country. Treating autism, I would argue, is a matter of equality of citizenship.

But we are not fulfilling that commitment today. Medicare does not provide for the treatment of autism. Some provinces offer limited programs for autism as has been discussed here already and other provinces offer nothing at all. Without medicare coverage, families with autistic children are left to bear the crushing financial burden of treatment on their own at a cost of approximately $45,000 to $60,000 a year. Some families mortgage their house to pay for treatment; others simply go bankrupt. Some parents must choose whether they can afford to give their child certain therapy.

The cost of treatment ranges from $45,000 to $60,000 a year, and this is quite simply beyond the means of most Canadians. We should not and cannot ask a family to choose between a normal life for a child and financial security.

No family should have to bear such an enormous, arbitrary burden. We have recognized the importance of this principle in other areas, such as the deepening of our catastrophic drug coverage.

How should the House address this issue? First, we should acknowledge from the outset that provincial health plans are not within our jurisdiction and that we must respect the divisions of power between our two levels of government. However, the federal government can and I would argue indeed must play a constructive role to ensure that Canadian families have equal access to treatment.

The federal government must lead a national strategy because the cost of treatment is so great that a lack of a national standard will create what I call medical arbitrage. Families with autistic children will be forced to leave their communities to move to the provinces with the best programs. No province will push to create more comprehensive treatment when it is being penalized by inflows of patients. There will be a race to the bottom, not a race to the top.

It is clear that the federal government can play an important role in autism, but it must also respect provincial jurisdictions. Bill C-304 lays out avenues for dealing with autism.

The bill before the House lays out a way forward. It addresses the two most important steps that Canada must take to address autism.

First, this bill would require the Minister of Health to convene a conference between all provincial and territorial health ministers for the purpose of developing a national strategy for the treatment of autism. To address autism we must work with the provinces. They have the responsibility here, but not the funds. One solution that could emerge from this conference is the development of a funding mechanism to assist provincial governments in providing the support that Canadians with autism need.

This bill would also amend the Canada Health Act to make applied behavioural analysis and intensive behavioural intervention defined as medically necessary for persons with autism.

It is somewhat absurd to suggest that therapy is not necessary for an autistic child. Without therapy, an autistic child simply cannot live a normal life. For the child's humanity, treatment is necessary.

This bill lays out avenues that involve the provinces. It is time Canada took action against autism, a blight on society. We must support this bill.

Funding autism treatment means the investment of not insignificant funds in our children. As such, it must be carefully considered, but it has to be considered. Simply putting funds into websites and public relations does not nearly do enough for these families, and the reward of turning a dysfunctional, socially troubled child into a productive member of Canadian society is worth it.

It is time we stood shoulder to shoulder with all our fellow Canadians. Treating autism is an important step in the never-ending march toward realizing the Canadian dream of equality.

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech. I have three points to bring up. One deals with the much talked about broken promises of the Conservative government, not only the broken promises on income trusts, but the broken promises on the patient wait time guarantees and the broken promises on dealing with a national strategy for autism.

Obviously health care is an important issue in Quebec, as it is in my riding of West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast--Sea to Sky Country and the province of British Columbia. Could the member tell me how Quebec is going to deal with this string of Conservative broken promises, the most important of which, I believe, is the broken promise to deal with health care on a national basis and to deal with health care and the wait time guarantees?

I have been in a number of meetings with the province of British Columbia and the premier of B.C. to deal with health care issues in B.C. We are having a conversation right now with British Columbians to get to the root of the problem. The question I have for the hon. member is this: what specifically is Quebec going to do to deal with this broken promise of the Conservatives on their wait time guarantee?

[Autism, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful the heartless minority Conservative government is paying lip service to parents and children affected by autism. Surely the minister does not believe that telling parents to go to a website makes up for the fact that his government has put up no new money for autism research, no new money for program support and no new money for autism development and treatment.

The previous Liberal government invested $16.2 million which supported 32 separate products. Will the Minister of Health stop turning his back on families with autism, put his money where his mouth is, and cough up some new money to support families with autism today?

[Vicki Gabereau, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters is inducting Vicki Gabereau into the Broadcast Hall of Fame.

Vicki is one of my constituents and a dear friend. She has had a remarkable career in media. She hosted CBC Radio's Variety Tonight for 12 years and her own TV show for eight years. She is known across Canada for her sharp intellect, her very quick wit and genuine interest in people.

Vicki has contributed immensely to her industry and to our community. I am proud to congratulate her on her achievement.