House of Commons Hansard #165 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was terrorism.

Topics

Question No. 841Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

With regard to applications received by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) since December 2011: (a) broken down by visa office, (i) how many Parent and Grandparent Super Visa applications have been received, (ii) how many applications for the Parent and Grandparent Super Visa have been denied, (iii) how many applications for the Parent and Grandparent Super Visa have been approved; (b) broken down by visa office, (i) how many family class Permanent Residency applications have been withdrawn, (ii) how many family class Permanent Residency applications have been finalized; (c) broken down by visa office, how many officers work on Parent and Grandparent Super Visa applications; (d) since December 2011, (i) how much money has been spent on advertising and promotion of the Super Visa program abroad, (ii) in which countries is the Super Visa being promoted; (e) has Citizenship and Immigration Canada encountered any problems or complaints concerning the Super Visa and, if so, what were these complaints and where were they located; (f) has Citizenship and Immigration Canada received any complaints concerning the exclusion of the dependent children of parents and grandparents from the Super Visa; and (g) does Citizenship and Immigration Canada foresee the inclusion of dependent children in the Parent and Grandparent Super Visa?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 842Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

With regard to Service Canada Old Age Security and Canadian Pension Plan call centres for fiscal years 2006-2007 through 2012-2013 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of calls broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (b) what was the number of calls that received a high volume message broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (c) what were the national Service Level standards for calls answered by an agent broken down by year; (d) what were the actual Service Level standards achieved for calls answered by an agent broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (e) what were the service standards for call backs broken down by year; (f) what were the service standards achieved for call backs broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (g) what was the average number of days for a call back by an agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; and (h) what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 843Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for fiscal years 2006-2007 through 2012-2013 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of EI applications broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (b) what was the average EI applications processing time broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (c) how many applications waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres broken down by year; (g) what were the actual service level standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (h) what were the service standards for call backs by EI call centre agents broken down by year; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI call centre agents for call backs broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (j) what was the average number of days for a call back by an EI call centre agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (k) for EI processing centres, what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (l) for EI call centres, what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (m) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where the complaint originated, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (n) how long on average did a complaint take to investigate and resolve, broken down by (i) year, (ii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; and (o) what were the major themes of the complaints received, broken down by year?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 844Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

With respect to the increase in the age eligibility for Old Age security (OAS) and the government's contention that it was necessary for the long-term sustainability of the program: (a) what is the measure that the government uses to determine the sustainability level for OAS; (b) what does the government consider OAS sustainability in terms of (i) maximum dollar figure per year expended on OAS, (ii) maximum percentage of the government's annual budget expended on OAS, (iii) maximum percentage of annual GDP spent on OAS; (c) what are the details, including dates and file numbers, of all studies the government has undertaken in determining that the OAS age of eligibility needed to be raised; (d) what is the expected saving in each year from 2023 to 2029 as a result of the increase in age of eligibility, detailing the assumptions included in these calculations, including annual inflation rate; (e) were any other options studied to ensure sustainability of OAS, and if so, what are the details, including dates and file numbers of these options and or studies and why they were not chosen; (f) how many individuals will not be eligible for (i) OAS, (ii) Guaranteed Income Support (GIS) in each year from 2023 to 2029 as a result of the increase in age of eligibility; (g) how many individuals will be eligible for (i) OAS, (ii) GIS, in each year from 2023 to 2029 as a result of the increase in age of eligibility; (h) given OAS and GIS are fully funded from general revenues, was the government anticipating deficits in years 2023 to 2029 and beyond as a reason to decrease OAS and GIS costs, and if so, how large were the anticipated deficits for these years and will the change in age of eligibility eliminate these deficits; (i) what is rationale for choosing 2023 as the year to start implementing the age eligibility increase; and (j) who was consulted, including public and private stakeholder groups, and when on the age of eligibility change?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Combating Terrorism ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine has five minutes.

Combating Terrorism ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will resume where we left off before question period today.

The bill before us today could violate the fundamental rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why I am opposed to the bill.

With respect to investigative hearings, the bill would allow for someone who is charged to be required to attend an examination and present evidence. This is certainly not a court in the traditional sense. The answers given during such a hearing cannot be used against the individual. However, the individual must attend and answer questions.

It is not standard practice for a judge to examine the so-called accused. This goes against Canada's legal principles. The judge must not play this role. Why would we create such a situation and force the judge to do so?

We must avoid violating the fundamental principles of justice. That is exactly why we insist that the judge remain neutral. But this bill would have the judge play the role of prosecutor. That goes completely against legal principles that have existed for hundreds of years.

I would also like to talk about recognizance with conditions. We are talking about preventive detention, without any charges. In other words, a person can be detained for up to one year without ever being charged. Once again, we need to really ask ourselves whether we live in a free and democratic society. Can someone really be detained for one year without any charges? Frankly, this is an outrage that violates the fundamental rights upheld in this country. It is completely unacceptable. In a free and democratic society, I would like to think that any reasonable judge would ignore this legislation.

Unfortunately, a bill that is simply nonsense and unconstitutional is being introduced in the House. This is a waste of our time and an insult to Canadians.

We already have legislative measures to deal with terrorist activities in Canada. I invite the members of the House to read the Criminal Code, which includes many items already dedicated to the matter, including for instance, section 83 onward.

Once again, I will ask the same question I asked earlier this morning: what has changed in Canada to justify this crackdown regarding charges of terrorism?

Parts of the Criminal Code already deal with this issue. The government is creating new parts that, in my opinion, will be inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why not start with prevention?

Again, the government's approach is to deal with things after the fact. However, prevention would help avoid a situation or circumstances in which terrorism could threaten Canada.

In its 2012 budget, the Government of Canada cut $688 million from Public Safety Canada's budget, or 10% of its budget, which affected 1,300 Canada Border Services Agency officers. In total, 1,300 jobs were lost.

Again, it is a matter of prevention. In this case, prevention eliminates the need to get tough later.

That being said, there is no evidence of there ever having been any need to invoke our country's anti-terrorism laws. There have been very few opportunities to invoke our anti-terrorism laws that are currently in the Criminal Code, let alone the laws that were quickly passed following the events of September 11, 2001, which were in effect from 2001 to 2006. We do not need these laws because we already have all the tools we need. In the same breath, the Conservatives insist on cutting budgets and thereby putting the Canadian public at risk.

Why not focus on prevention? I would truly like to understand the Conservatives. Often, they come up with bills for the optics of it all, when in reality they are making such extensive budget cuts that it is becoming impossible to protect the Canadian public. Let them introduce a meaningful bill that truly addresses the problem instead of this farce from the Senate.

Combating Terrorism ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to get a better understanding of the bill. The most significant changes in it are the increased penalties and fines and so forth. This is not going to prevent terrorist acts. Some would-be terrorist is not going to stop participating in or committing a terrorist act because the fine has substantially increased.

Given the fact that we have a limited amount of time to debate a wide variety of issues and the government has now brought forward another huge omnibus bill that needs to be debated, could the member tell us whether he believes the government's priorities are right when it comes to dealing with the legislative agenda of the House.

Combating Terrorism ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his question.

In my opinion, the government is not on the right track. Once again, the government wants to crack down. The Conservatives are introducing bills in the House to solve problems that, frankly, do not actually seem to exist.

I would like to remind members that when this bill was debated in the Senate before it arrived in the House, the testimony showed that there were no examples of actual cases where this legislation could have been used. Let us think about the Toronto 18. In that case, the measures already set out in the Criminal Code were more than sufficient to deal with the situation, this dreaded risk of terrorism.

Since then, we have seen that the existing and available laws in this country are completely sufficient. Is the government on the right track with Bill S-7?

It seems that the government is selling a product to Canadians. It is trying to lead Canadians to believe that they should be afraid, that they should hide and that only the Government of Canada can defend them. That is not the case.

We already have before us all the tools we need—tools that were debated in minority parliaments and agreed upon by all the parties across Canada. It is really unfortunate to be in a position where a single party is trying to run everything, because that leads to absurd measures such as Bill S-7, which, in my opinion, is unconstitutional.

Combating Terrorism ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine a fundamental question about practices in this Parliament. We have two Houses in this Parliament. This substantive legislation would change laws that will affect civil liberties and human rights in this country.

Could my hon. colleague explain to me why the government felt that the bill should be introduced in the unelected House, the House that is full of government appointees, its friends, rather than the House that has representatives from across the country who were duly elected by Canadians?

Combating Terrorism ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine has 50 seconds.

Combating Terrorism ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief.

I thank the member for Scarborough—Rouge River for the excellent job she does. She works very hard for her constituents. I think we should applaud her for everything she has done since being elected.

It is true that introducing a bill in the Senate means introducing it in a chamber that is full of unelected people who, in my opinion, do not adequately represent the Canadian people.

Bills, especially ones that are so fundamental they change an accused's right to defend himself, should be the prerogative of this country's elected members, who are able to debate, make amendments, testify and invite witnesses.

The Senate should not be the chamber to introduce this kind of bill. That is undemocratic. The Senate does not really have a place in a modern state like Canada. The Conservative government should be ashamed of trying to bypass the House of Commons. The debate should be held here.

If this bill passes second reading, it will be sent to committee. This bill should have been sent to the House of Commons committee from the beginning. That is where the debates should be held. Canada's elected members should debate this fundamental bill. I would like—

Combating Terrorism ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The hon. member was out of time two or three minutes ago.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

Combating Terrorism ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

Today I rise alongside my colleagues, to speak against Bill S-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. The bill goes against the values of Canadians. It infringes upon civil liberties and human rights, a repeated theme among the actions of the government, I must add. It has measures that have been proven to be unnecessary and ineffective.

I would like to be clear. The New Democratic Party believes that it must seriously address the issue of terrorism. Keeping Canadians safe is of the utmost priority. However, we also must ensure respect for our rights and freedoms. The provisions in the bill fail to balance our need for security and our basic fundamental rights. Both are equally important to Canadians and espouse Canadian values.

Bill S-7 is the most recent iteration and measure of a series of anti-terrorism laws that began with Bill C-36, tabled in 2001. The Anti-Terrorism Act, tabled in 2001, was enacted to update Canadian legislation and respond to international standards, specifically the requirements of the United Nations, as well as to actually present a legislative response to the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

The provisions of the act remain in place today, except for two of the troubling provisions: the investigative hearings and the recognizance with conditions. The bill was adopted in response to a horrific event on September 11, 2001, which we all know too well. It left people in a state of panic and fear.

The excessive provisions in the act expired four years ago. A sunset clause was rightly added to these provisions back in 2001, with certain provisions to expire in 2007. This was following concerns that were raised during the legislative process in 2001 that these measures, without any precedent in Canada, could have been used inappropriately.

In order to extend these provisions, both Houses of Parliament must adopt a resolution to that effect. In February of 2007, when they expired, such a resolution was rejected by the House of Commons, with a vote of 159 to 124, because the controversial provisions had not even been used. We now have learned that there is no empirical evidence to support such legislation. When the provisions expired in 2007, there had been no investigative hearing and no situations that required a recognizance with conditions. Actually, I must add that the investigative hearing has been used once since it was created in 2001, as part of the Air India inquiry, but that led to no conclusive results.

New Democrats oppose the bill because it is ineffective in combatting terrorism. In a parliamentary review of the bill, committees heard over and over from stakeholders and experts that the current Canadian legislation was sufficient. It begs the question, why is the government choosing to ignore experts? We all know this will not be the first time that the government chooses to ignore experts in the field and writes erroneous legislation based on its own ideology.

The committee heard that the Criminal Code has sufficient provisions to investigate those involved in criminal activity and detaining anyone who might be an immediate threat to Canadians. In a 2011 review by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-17, the former version of Bill S-7, a spokesperson for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group said that between 2007 and today, police investigations have successfully dismantled terrorist plots without having to resort to any of the provisions discussed here. Also, even since 2001, or for 10 years, among the investigations leading to accusations or convictions, none required the use of these extraordinary powers, including the Khawaja case, the Toronto 18 case, or more recently, the case involving four people from the Toronto region.

In addition to the fact that the bill will be ineffective in combatting terrorism, I want to stress the point that Bill S-7 stomps on basic civil liberties and human rights.

Our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is fundamental to Canada and to Canadians. We cherish the charter. Yet over and over again, we see legislation from the government that tramples upon Canadian values.

What is even more alarming is that, as experts have indicated, this infringement on rights and freedoms is completely unnecessary and utterly ineffective. Yet, the government goes ahead anyway.

A spokesperson from the International Civil Liberals Monitoring Group said the use of arbitrary power and “a lower level of evidence” cannot replace the properly carried out work of the police. “On the contrary, these powers open the door to a denial of justice” and the substantial likelihood of ruining the reputation of innocent individuals, as was the case for Mr. Arar.

These kinds of decisions reveal a government that does not respect Canadians or Canadian values. We believe on this side of the House that Bill S-7 violates the most basic civil liberties and human rights, specifically the right to remain silent, the right to not incriminate oneself and the right to not be imprisoned without first having a fair trial.

Experts have warned that Bill S-7 would make it punishable by imprisonment for up to 12 months, or impose strict conditions on the release of individuals who have never been charged with a criminal offence. We believe this goes against the core values of our Canadian justice system.

Moreover, the provisions in the bill could be used to target individuals participating in activities, such as active protest, dissent, which has absolutely nothing to do with the reasonable definition of terrorism.

Canadians take their rights and responsibilities to protest to heart and use them to make their voices heard. The arbitrary nature of the provisions in the bill could certainly lead to an abuse of power, and we have seen that happen many times by the government.

Canadians would not be better protected by legislation that infringes upon their rights and freedoms, but rather they will be better protected with intelligence efforts and appropriate police action.

Canadians are tired of seeing actions and legislation that show such a lack of respect for our Canadian values. Let me conclude by reminding the members opposite that actions and legislation that show such a lack of respect for Canadian values creates a disconnect between policy-makers and the needs of the people they represent.

The Criminal Code contains all of the provisions necessary to fight terrorism. Yet here we are, discussing a bill that shamefully infringes on our civil liberties and human rights.

Sadly, the bill is yet another example of the government missing the mark on writing sound legislation. The bill, as it stands, has no balance between the need for security and the protection of the fundamental rights of Canadians. Therefore, I cannot support the bill.

As many experts in the field have said, it is quite unnecessary and full of holes. It introduces concepts that are foreign to our Canadian values and it risks causing many more problems than those that it actually solves.

Canadians expect the government to prioritize tangible job creation in our communities across the country, measurable environment protection and real action for community safety, not the infringement of our basic human rights and freedoms.

Combating Terrorism ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her excellent speech. She touched on some extremely important points in this bill.

I noted several of the things she said, including her comment about the lack of respect the Conservatives have for Canadians by introducing a bill that will violate our fundamental rights.

Can the hon. member elaborate on the fundamental rights that are being totally violated with Bill S-7?

Combating Terrorism ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, there are many Canadian values and rights that are being violated with this bill. I outlined a few in my speech earlier, and they are the right to remain silent and the right to not imprison or convict oneself. Recognizance with conditions actually requires people to pledge that they understand there is something wrong in their cases, before they even have an opportunity to have a trial or appear before a judge. That is not a Canadian value. In Canada, our justice system says that one is innocent until proven guilty. The recognizance with conditions says a person agrees that he or she may have done something. If people want to get out on bail, they would be signing something saying they may have done something. That is really not how we act in Canada.

Combating Terrorism ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of ethnic communities in my colleague's riding. Many communities fear that this will lead to racial profiling.

I would like to know whether any of the communities in her riding have commented on this bill.

Combating Terrorism ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, with regard to recognition and understanding of some of the other ridings in the country, she is very right. She is bang on when she says there is an extremely high population of newer immigrants in my riding, and we are already concerned. Before Bill S-7 was introduced, we were already concerned about racial profiling. If we look at our prison populations, we see mostly racialized youth being detained.

We know racial profiling is a serious concern for many organizations and members in the community, and when we look at some of these bills, it seems it is an underhanded way of achieving some of the goals the government was not able to achieve in previous Parliaments. Now that the government has the majority of seats in the House, it wants to push anything and everything through that it could not achieve before.

We know that the House voted down the special provisions that were not needed and not used from 2001 to 2007 when they were in effect. The investigative hearing was used once, and the recognizance of conditions was never used.

Officers and legal experts in this country are saying they are not necessary, yet the government, of course, says it is very necessary for the protection of Canadians. I am going to side with the experts on this and not the government.