Svend Robinson

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 27th, 2002]

It is one thing to disagree, and the member from Mississauga says they disagree with him. That is all well and good, but instead of disagreeing, Liberal members of parliament are attacking the messenger. They are attacking the privacy commissioner himself and surely that is not acceptable.

We know that the privacy commissioner has raised these concerns with the solicitor general. He has raised these concerns with the Minister of Transport. As my colleague from Churchill has pointed out, the Minister of Transport has been totally silent on this important legislation. Where is his leadership on this assault on privacy?

Here is what the privacy commissioner had to say about the response of the solicitor general to his concerns on the bill. He said that these are “highly misleading statements, half-truths and assumptions”. Those are very strong words from the privacy commissioner.

We in the New Democratic Party want to voice our strongest possible opposition to the legislation. When the government brought forward Bill C-42 we urged it to go back to the drawing board, to reject this attack on the most basic rights of Canadians.

It was done without any consultation with the provincial governments and the Government of Quebec and without any consultation with Canadians.

Instead of going back to the drawing board and coming back with a finely crafted piece of legislation, what the government has done is come back with a sledgehammer that is an assault on human rights and the privacy rights of Canadians. We as New Democrats will do everything in our power to stop this abuse of power by the Liberal government.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege for me to talk about this very important and truly antidemocratic bill. I share the views expressed by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois on the matter. I would like to say clearly, as my colleague from Churchill, the NDP's transportation critic has said already, that the members of the New Democratic Party will vote against this bill. We will do all in our power to try to stop it and to ensure that it is never adopted in Canada.

In the days since September 11 we have witnessed a number of very serious assaults on the most fundamental civil liberties and human rights of Canadians. All of us of course support a fight against terrorism which is targeted and respectful of basic human rights. Indeed, there are some elements in this legislation, as my colleague from Churchill pointed out, that we support.

For example, we support the provisions with respect to money laundering, the new criminal offences for bomb threats, the implementation of international conventions to fight the proliferation of biological weapons, explosives and people smuggling by organized crime.

We do not oppose those. What we had hoped is that the government would have listened to Canadians from coast to coast to coast who voiced their outrage and anger about the provisions of Bill C-42. Instead what we see is legislation now tabled, Bill C-55, which while it purports to improve some elements of Bill C-42, is some very draconian and dangerous provisions that were not encompassed in the previous legislation on Bill C-42.

We have seen too often in Canada and in other countries the fight against terrorism being used as an excuse to suppress fundamental human rights.

We have seen this already in the case of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. Only one political party voted against this bill at the second reading stage, the New Democratic Party. I was really disappointed to see that my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois had not heard the strong voices of all Quebecers who exposed the possible abuse Bill C-36 could lead to. They even supported this bill at the second reading stage. This was far from acceptable.

As a number of international human rights organizations have pointed out, it is precisely at times such as this that civil liberties and human rights are most vulnerable. As the UN high commissioner for human rights, Mary Robinson, stated:

Excessive measures have been taken in several parts of the world that suppress or restrict individual rights including privacy, freedom of thought, presumption of innocence, fair trail, the right to seek asylum, political participation, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

My colleagues already have pointed out some of the concerns about this legislation, such as the sweeping and unaccountable discretion that is given to cabinet ministers, who only have to report back to parliament after a number of days, and the fact that there is no guarantee whatsoever that there will be any accountability to parliament. All they have to do is table their reports.

We know as well that the concerns with respect to the so-called controlled access military zones are very serious concerns. Canadians spoke out against this in the context of Bill C-42. While there have been some modifications, overall there is still a very grave potential for abuse in this area as well.

In the context of Kananaskis, my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois has pointed out that these provisions could indeed be used there, despite the denials of the minister. Many of us are very concerned about the growing atmosphere of intimidation of those who would peacefully and non-violently dissent at the upcoming G-8 summit in Kananaskis.

In fact just last week a senior brigadier general from the Canadian military threatened to use lethal force, lethal weapons at Kananaskis. This is shameful. He said “We are very serious...we have lethal weapons and we will use force if we think there is a serious threat”. He warned protesters and others that they would be risking their lives by protesting at the G-8 summit.

We do not want to give these kinds of sweeping and unaccountable powers to the government such as those proposed in Bill C-55.

One of the most dangerous provisions of this legislation is a new section that was not included in Bill C-42 at all. That is the possibility of sweeping access by the RCMP and CSIS to passenger lists for airlines. We have to ask ourselves why this is needed. Is it strictly needed to target potential terrorists? In fact that is not the case. The legislation includes some 150 offences under the criminal code for which this dramatic expansion of privacy invasive police powers is possible.

I want to pay tribute to the privacy commissioner of Canada, George Radwanski, who has sounded the alarm bell in the strongest and most eloquent terms against these abusive and dangerous provisions of Bill C-55. He said in a direct warning to parliament that:

It appears to be, quite simply, a power grab by the police. More precisely, since the police in a free and democratic country like Canada cannot seize power for themselves, a provision like this could only go forward into law as an award of unnecessary and unjustified new powers to the police by naive or indifferent political authorities.

What has been the response by some Liberal members of parliament to this cry of anger and concern by the privacy commissioner who has the mandate to protect the privacy of Canadians? Has it been to have another look at the legislation, to go back and say that maybe he has raised some serious concerns here before parliament? No, shamefully it has been to attack the privacy commissioner, in some cases in very personal terms.

We have heard for example the Liberal MP from Aldershot who said that he was condemning parliament and that he had gone way too far. George Radwanski, the privacy commissioner, is not condemning parliament. He is condemning a Liberal government that is prepared to abuse its powers to trample on the most basic privacy rights of Canadians. In fact, far from condemning parliament, he is sounding an alarm to parliament, one which it appears that Liberal members of parliament are quite prepared to ignore.

[Petitions, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed by residents of British Columbia, including several hundred residents of my own constituency of Burnaby--Douglas, on the subject of the Canadian public health care system.

The petitioners call upon parliament to stop two tier, American-style health care from moving into Canada. They note concerns about federal government cuts for health care funding and the fact that the federal government currently is paying just 13.5% of health care costs. They are concerned with respect to the importance of immediate action to save public health care in Canada and to stop two tier, American-style health care from coming.

They call upon parliament to stop for-profit hospitals, to restore full federal funding for health care by increasing the federal government's share of health care funding to 25% immediately, and finally, to implement a national home care program and a national program for prescription drugs.

[Terrorism, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to support the decision of the government to ratify the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. This brings to 12 the number of conventions we have ratified.

In this war against terrorism, as mentioned by my colleague from Mercier, we must also ratify the other international instruments dealing with human rights.

All states should be encouraged to ratify international human rights conventions at the earliest possible time, particularly the six core treaties. As well, ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court should be promoted along with a strengthening of the mandate of the court to enable it to deal with terrorism which may not constitute a crime against humanity. In the struggle against terrorism the importance of respecting fundamental human rights and freedoms must be underscored. As Bacre Ndiaye of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights pointed out:

There is evidence that some Governments are now introducing measures that may erode core human rights safeguards.

In some countries, non-violent activities have been considered as terrorism, and excessive measures have been taken to suppress or restrict individual rights--

Here at home the so-called anti-terrorism legislation Bill C-36 and the legislation just tabled, Bill C-55, raise serious human rights concerns as well.

In the fight against terrorism we must do far more to tackle the conditions which give rise to desperation and hopelessness and can ultimately be exploited by terrorists. These include poverty, the injustices that continue in the Middle East with respect to the illegal occupation by Israel of the occupied Palestinian territories, the inhumane sanctions on Iraq, and the continued denial of the rights of the Kurdish people.

We in our party welcome the decision of the government to ratify the treaty. However much more work must be done if we are to effectively counter terrorism around the globe.

[Foreign Affairs, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Tomorrow Armenian communities and people around the world will commemorate the victims of the 1915 Armenian genocide. Today, in the foreign affairs committee, I will be moving a motion to recognize this terrible crime against humanity as genocide, not just as a tragedy but as genocide.

Will the Liberal government now finally honour the memory of the 1.5 million victims of the Armenian holocaust and join with the French national assembly and many others to recognize the Armenian genocide for what it was: Genocide, not just tragedy but genocide. When will they finally--

[Pest Control Products Act, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary to clarify our position with respect to the important resolution calling on Mary Robinson, as the United Nations commissioner on human rights, to lead a delegation to examine first-hand the human rights situation in the occupied territories in Israel.

She says that we examine resolutions with care and we look at the position of like-minded states. France, Germany, Spain and Sweden all supported that resolution. There was only one member out of 53, and that was Guatemala, that opposed it. What is clear to many Canadians is that while the United States may have been kicked off the human rights commission it now has a clear mouthpiece at the commission. Canada has in fact taken on the role of speaking on behalf of the United States. It is a pretty sad day for Canadian diplomacy at the human rights commission in Geneva. Why was Canada alone with Guatemala, out of 53 countries, in opposing Mary Robinson?

[Pest Control Products Act, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on March 18 I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning the growing violence in the Middle East, particularly in the occupied territories. I pointed out that many Canadians were appalled at the brutal violence of Israeli forces in the occupied territories, the destruction of homes and clinics, the degrading mass detentions and the killings. At the same time I strongly condemned the attacks on innocent Israeli civilians.

I urged the Prime Minister to assure the House and all Canadians that Canada would support resolutions at the then upcoming session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights that called for full respect for international law and an end to the illegal occupation of all territories seized by Israel in 1967. That was on March 18.

At the end of March along with a number of colleagues from the House and Senate I participated in a parliamentary delegation at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. The delegation included Liberal members. It included the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, Liberal Senator Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia, Conservative Senator Raynell Andreychuk, the hon. Bloc Quebecois member from Châteauguay, and myself. Every member of the delegation without exception was absolutely appalled at the position the Canadian government took at the commission with respect to the issue of human rights.

A resolution was put forward at the human rights commission in Geneva based on the powerful and eloquent plea of Mary Robinson, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Ms. Robinson had pleaded with the commission to recognize that a human rights and humanitarian tragedy was unfolding before our eyes in Israel and the occupied territories. She urged the commission to send a human rights delegation of respected leaders including herself to see firsthand the human rights situation.

What was Canada's position? Shamefully, Canada voted against sending a delegation to Israel and the occupied territories to look at the human rights situation. Only two of the 53 countries voted against sending a delegation. Guatemala was the other. Many Canadians were shocked, troubled and saddened the Liberal government was not prepared to support a delegation. Many delegates from other countries asked me the same question.

My question is for the government, through the parliamentary secretary. Will Canada finally show leadership and speak out strongly for an end to the illegal occupation? Will we call for a strong international protection force in the occupied territories to protect the Palestinian people from the ongoing brutality and violence of the Israeli defence forces? My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party also condemn in the strongest possible terms the suicide bombings and attacks on innocent Israeli civilians as recently as this past weekend in the market in Jerusalem.

The violence must end. Canada must call for an international protection force and an end to the occupation.

[Petitions, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of my constituency of Burnaby--Douglas as well as elsewhere in British Columbia on the subject of high oil and gas prices.

The petitioners note that energy is a Canadian natural resource but that we have little control over this resource. They point out that the big oil companies, which dominate refining and gasoline sales, are free to set whatever prices they want at the wholesale level at the pumps and that they do not have to justify those prices at all. They raise concerns about Canadian households and businesses that rely on energy and therefore have no alternative but to pay the higher prices.

Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to urge the government to set up an energy price commission that would hold big oil companies accountable for the energy prices that they charge Canadians.

[Foreign Affairs, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Earlier this month a Canadian businessman, James Sabzali, was the first foreign national to be convicted under the U.S. trading with the enemy act. His crime was selling water purification supplies for the people of Cuba.

What action is the minister taking to strongly protest this outrageous attack by the United States on a Canadian citizen whose only crime was to obey Canadian law?

[Petitions, April 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which was signed by hundreds of residents of British Columbia, including many constituents from my constituency of Burnaby--Douglas, on the subject of the proposed free trade area of the Americas.

The petitioners voice their concern about the secret negotiations that have been conducted on the proposed FTAA. They note that the FTAA would expand the NAFTA to the entire hemisphere, and they raise concerns about that. They point out that the proposed FTAA would block the ability of governments to create and maintain laws, standards and regulations to provide universal public education and health care, to protect the safety and well-being of their citizens and the environment, and they raise other concerns as well.

They therefore request that parliament, among other things, reject any trade deals including the proposed FTAA that would propose NAFTA-style provisions which would put the rights of corporations and investors ahead of the rights of citizens and governments.

Finally, they urge that we adopt a new approach to globalization that places social, economic and ecological justice above the profits of multinational corporations and establish an alternative rules-based system that promotes and protects the rights of workers and the environment, respects cultural diversity and ensures the ability of governments to act in the public interest.