Svend Robinson

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will take a couple of minutes on this group of amendments to voice my very deep sense of concern and anger at the decision of the Liberal government to reverse the important work that was done by the standing committee on the environment. I want to pay tribute to the chair of that committee, the member for Davenport, a longstanding and very respected member of the House and a former minister of the environment, as well as all of the members of that committee from all sides of the House who worked long and hard to arrive at a consensus.

The debate around that legislation was vigorous even within our own caucus. We came to the conclusion that we could support it because of the fact there had been significant improvement in two key areas of the legislation, the area of habitat protection as well as the in the area of the very important decision around who would have the final word, scientists or politicians. There was significant improvement and strengthening of those provisions in response to representations from environmentalists and from Canadians across this land.

With those improvements, we were prepared to support the legislation, recognizing full well that in many important respects a lot more work could have been done to protect endangered species. Canadians wanted to see endangered species protected. That compromise was arrived at in good faith after literally hours and hours of intensive work, dialogue and hearings of the standing committee on the environment.

As well, that compromise was one that was supported by the Canadian Alliance. The representative of the Canadian Alliance on that committee voted in favour of the bill at report stage precisely because of the fact that they were able to arrive at that consensus. It was a consensus that included industry as well. It was quite extraordinary that they came on board and they did. Some of the major heads of industry together with Elizabeth May from the Sierra Club, the David Suzuki Foundation and others were prepared to say, yes, that this was a bill they could live with. While it was not perfect they were prepared to live with. That is all too rare.

What happened? The Minister of the Environment, my colleague from British Columbia, and quite obviously the Prime Minister's office as well, came in and said to hell with this agreement and to hell with all the work the committee did on these profoundly important issues and, in particular, on the key issues of the listing and scientific basis for that and the issue of habitat protection.

The member for York North, a hard working member of that committee from the government side, pointed out very eloquently that the government tore up that consensus, which is one of the most disgusting displays of contempt for parliament that I have ever witnessed. I have been here for a few years, but seldom has there ever been that kind of gross contempt for the work of a group of dedicated members of parliament from all parties.

I appeal to the government, even at this late stage, to recognize that it has made a serious mistake and to go back to the original legislation. I appeal for it to recognize, as I said before, that while it does not represent a perfect bill, 80%, 85%, 90% of Canadians believe deeply in the importance of protecting endangered species. The bill that came out of committee was one they and we as New Democrats could support.

Where did the pressure come from that government caved in in such a crass and appalling manner and voted non-confidence, not just in the many witnesses who appeared before the committee but in their own colleagues and in the chair of the committee? As I said before, the chair is a dedicated, respected member of this House and he is an environmentalist. Members, like the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and the member for York North, have spoken out courageously against these amendments? It is a dark day for democracy when we see what has happened to Bill C-5.

I appeal, if not to the government, then perhaps to Liberal members of parliament to reject this weakening of the legislation, to stand up not only for the environment and endangered species, but to stand up for the integrity of parliament itself. That is what this is about. It is about a government showing contempt for the work of an all party committee and in doing that contempt for the views of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. These Canadians said that they wanted to protect endangered species and that they believed this was a significant way of advancing that.

On behalf of my colleagues, we are terribly disappointed and angered at the betrayal by the Minister of the Environment, by the parliamentary secretary and by the government of the work of that committee and of the work of dedicated Canadians who want to protect endangered species.

The NDP will reject in the strongest possible terms this attempt to water down the legislation. If these amendments, which would weaken and erode the protection in the bill, are adopted, we intend to oppose this legislation.

[Petitions, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition initiated by Peggy Land of the Religious Society of Friends and the Quaker Movement in Ottawa and signed by hundreds of concerned Canadians. The petitioners note that serious incidents of human rights abuses are continuing in Nigeria despite Canada's recent joint agreement with Nigeria to co-operate in building peace and stability based on universal norms of equality, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

They refer to the case of Safiyatu Husseini, a young Nigerian woman currently condemned to die for having a child out of wedlock. They point out that this is not in accordance with Islamic law or universal norms of equality and human rights which we committed to fostering in Nigeria.

The petitioners call on parliament not to proceed with expanded trade with Nigeria until brutal practices such as those being faced by Safiyatu Husseini are ended.

[Contraventions Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill currently before the House which was proposed by my colleague from Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

We are debating Bill C-344 as a private member's bill. Although I am the member of parliament for Burnaby--Douglas I speak in this debate as a private member as do all members. I do not purport to speak on behalf of my caucus colleagues. There are a range of views in my caucus on the issue. However it is fair to say that on the issue of decriminalization and the medical use of marijuana the New Democratic Party strongly supports the changes being proposed.

Bill C-344 is an important step but does not go far enough. We should recognize that the issue of drug use should be dealt with as a health issue and not a criminal issue.

Our present approach to the issue of marijuana is steeped in hypocrisy. I cannot tell the House how many times I have spoken with young people who say the most destructive drugs in our society are alcohol and tobacco. Yet those drugs are entirely legal. This does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that we should encourage the use of marijuana. It means we should recognize that the so-called war on drugs has been an abject failure in every sense of the word. Many have come to that conclusion.

A number of decades ago the Le Dain commission recommended decriminalization of marijuana yet there has been effectively no change whatsoever. Last year a committee of the European parliament adopted a report on drug use that came to the blunt conclusion that “legal sanctions against drug possession and use appear to have no effect whatsoever”. The report recommended European nations press ahead in the direction many have already taken: that treating drug use is a matter for health professionals and not police officers. This means making the use and possession of small amounts of drugs de facto legal while concentrating resources on health and social programs to reduce the harms of drug abuse.

If we legalized the possession of drugs for personal use one might ask whether it would not encourage their use. Would it not encourage more young people to use drugs and thus have a negative impact on their health? The answer is no.

At a conference last year in Stockholm the World Health Organization released a major international survey of drug use by teenagers. The results were revealing. The survey found that 41% of American teens had used marijuana or hashish compared with 16% of European teens. It found that 16% of American teens had used amphetamines and 10% had used LSD compared with 6% of European teens who had used illegal drugs aside from marijuana. This is the latest evidence which indicates that the United States, which has the highest spending and most punitive drug laws in the world, also has the highest rates of teenage drug use.

The war on drugs is not working. There are a half million people in American jails as a result of the unfair and destructive war on drugs. I hope we in Canada can join with a number of other jurisdictions in recognizing that this is a health issue.

Unfortunately there is tremendous pressure from the American government. The International Narcotics Control Board is a 13 member United Nations body set up to monitor compliance with international treaties banning drugs. It is effectively run and dominated by the United States. It recently attacked Canada by saying we were not cracking down hard enough on marijuana use.

What was the response of the Liberal Minister of Justice? She said it was clear we could do more and that we must do more. She said the government was seized with the issue and that we would put more resources toward it.

This approach is madness. It is not working. It is breeding contempt for an unfair, unjust and hypocritical law. While I support the bill of the hon. member as a step in the right direction, we should be going further. We should recognize that the answer is not just decriminalization but ending criminal sanctions and ensuring we put resources into education, awareness and prevention.

We must recognize that the war on drugs takes a terrible human toll. Drug users are in many cases forced to obtain their supplies from the black market. What does this mean? It means more crime. Prices become so high that addicts who finance their habit by committing crimes must commit more crimes to purchase them than if the drugs were legally available.

Drug users, particularly hard drug users, are pulled into a world of filthy needles, poisoned drugs, and pushers bent on selling them more addictive and dangerous fixes. They have no access to basic information such as the strength of the drug in question, the recommended maximum dosage for first time users, or the effect of mixing with other drugs such as alcohol.

I received correspondence from Alan Randel of Victoria, British Columbia who wrote to me about how his youngest son Peter died in February 1993 after ingesting heroin with friends. Only Peter died. Of course, too many have died.

My colleague from Vancouver East has been eloquent on the issue. She has spoken out about the terrible toll the futile and destructive war on drugs has taken in her constituency. One need only go to Main and Hastings to see the impact of it.

The young brother of a close friend of mine, Tim Pelzer, died of an overdose of drugs. Todd Pelzer should not have died. He got caught up in the vicious and destructive cycle of that element. It took his life. It is taking too many lives. It is taking the lives of street people in Vancouver East. It is taking the lives of people across Canada. It must stop. The destructive and futile war must stop. That is why I support Bill C-344 as a step in the right direction. However it does not go far enough.

Canadians asked themselves what on earth was going on when Ross Rebagliati, the world champion snowboarder, was initially barred from the United States. Why was he barred? He admitted to having smoked a few joints in the past. That is not acceptable.

We have an opportunity to change the laws. A committee of the House is examining the current drug legislation. I urge its members to be bold and recommend major changes to the laws. The Senate has a committee chaired by Senator Nolin which is making similar recommendations.

Much more can and should be done in this area. Yes, of course there are health concerns. However a number of studies have indicated marijuana may not be as serious as tobacco or alcohol. Smoking marijuana does not seem to cause lung cancer, emphysema or birth anomalies in fetuses, according to John P. Morgan of the City University of New York Medical School. Yes, there are symptoms of lung damage but not the life threatening conditions seen among tobacco smokers.

Mr. Morgan appeared as a witness before the Senate committee. He pointed out that while cannabis contains as many harmful compounds and irritants as tobacco, even heavy marijuana smokers do not smoke nearly as much as tobacco smokers. As he points out, the critical issue is the amount of smoke inhaled.

We must recognize that much more must be done in terms of ending the drug war. I just returned from Colombia where $500 worth of cocaine can bring as much as $100,000 on the streets of an American city. Colombian politicians tell us that if they are to be able to deal with the epidemic of the drug trade and the corruption it brings, we must take action here.

While Bill C-344 is an important step it does not go as far as it should in recognizing human, medical, criminal and health realities. I hope the bill will be referred to committee. I hope the committee will have an opportunity to bring the laws of Canada into conformity with justice and humanity.

[Foreign Affairs, February 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Yesterday the minister's colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, stated that we take the position that there must be some kind of process to make the determination of the status of prisoners that are captured by Canada. There is no process in place now.

I want to ask the minister a very straightforward question. Why does Canada continue to say that we will turn over prisoners to the United States when there is no process in place? Why are we showing such contempt for international law?

[Questions in the House of Commons, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have two brief points. First, the parliamentary secretary has completely ignored the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that Canadian forces are turning over prisoners to the United States without any assurance whatsoever that they will have an opportunity to come before a tribunal to have their status determined. The parliamentary secretary has completely ignored that.

Second, I have to ask her by way of a question whatever happened to Canada's longstanding opposition to capital punishment. We are now also prepared to turn over prisoners to the United States who will be tried in military tribunals and will be subject to the death penalty. Why is it that we are prepared to turn over those prisoners without any assurance whatsoever that they will not in fact be subjected to the death penalty?

What happened? Has our opposition to the death penalty become another casualty of the war in Afghanistan as well?

[Questions in the House of Commons, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising this evening to follow up on a question I asked of the Minister of Foreign Affairs on his first day in the House as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Monday, January 28. That question dealt with some of the most basic issues of the Canadian government's respect for international law and for Canadian values.

I asked whether our government was prepared to honour the Geneva conventions in our treatment of those prisoners that might be apprehended by Canadian forces who are joining with American forces in the operations in the Kandahar region of Afghanistan.

I would like to make it very clear in the preface to my comments this evening that my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party strongly opposed the deployment of Canadian troops as part of this military endeavour by the United States.

We felt that the September 11 attacks should have been dealt with as a crime against humanity and certainly we should not have been part of the United States led actions in Afghanistan. Having said that, we indicated that we were certainly supportive of Canadian troop involvement under United Nations auspices with the British operation in Kabul.

That was not to be. Instead we are now in the Kandahar region. More troops will be going in under American command and, most alarming, under the command ultimately of the commander in chief who has demonstrated total contempt for international law and for the Geneva conventions.

So far in this military operation over 4,000 innocent civilian lives have been lost. That is more than the number of lives that were lost on September 11 in the crimes against humanity attacks which took place that day. Cluster bombs remain on the ground in Afghanistan threatening the lives of children and others for generations to come. Landmines are being planted as well.

Tonight I once again appeal to our government to recognize that it should not be turning over any prisoners who may be captured by Canadian troops without ironclad assurance by the Americans that they are prepared to respect the Geneva conventions and international law.

That is not the case so far because one of the most essential elements of that international law and the Geneva conventions is that where the status of a prisoner is in question there must be an independent tribunal to determine that status. In fact the Minister of National Defence a week ago Monday, the same day I asked the question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when referring to the prisoners that had been captured said:

They have every right, though, for a tribunal to determine whether in fact they have status as a prisoner of war or have status as an unlawful combatant. Canada stands by that determination process in accordance with international law.

The government is breaking international law because we are turning over and are prepared to turn over prisoners to the United States without an assurance that they will be dealt with under the provisions of the Geneva conventions and with the tribunals that the Minister of National Defence has promised.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has insisted that these prisoners be treated as prisoners of war until their status has been determined to be otherwise.

It is a shameful day when the Canadian government is prepared to take its orders from George Bush and from the Pentagon and not to respect the most fundamental principles of international law.

[Foreign Affairs, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister just said a few minutes ago that we do not have that engagement. In his words, there is doubt that a process is in place. As long as that doubt is in place, how can we say we are respecting the Geneva conventions and article 12?

Why is the government showing such contempt for Canadian law and international law?

[Foreign Affairs, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. His colleague, the Minister of National Defence, has suggested that the Geneva conventions were outdated, but the legal director of the International Committee of the Red Cross has said that we have had new types of conflicts as well as classic wars, but the fundamental rules are the same.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs knows that one of those fundamental rules is article 12 of the Geneva convention which states that we cannot turn over prisoners of war unless we are satisfied that they are being treated under the provisions of the Geneva convention.

In view of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that there is doubt about that now, will he assure Canadians that no prisoners will be turned over until that doubt has been fully resolved?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was a member of Parliament in 1984. I believe that I am the only member still in the House today who was also a member of the Standing Committee on Justice that actually drafted the Young Offenders Act.

I rise today in support of the amendment moved by my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and more importantly to say that I believe that the Young Offenders Act has worked well in Quebec. It has worked well precisely because the Government of Quebec has respected the fundamental principles of this legislation by providing the necessary resources to support the alternatives found within the act and to achieve the results that those who drafted the legislation wanted. That was to reduce the number of young offenders and to emphasize rehabilitation and prevention, rather than imprisonment and retribution. It was designed in fact to avoid, as many provinces do, young offenders being put in the same jails as adults.

I would have hoped that all of the other provinces could have respected the principles of the Young Offenders Act, as Quebec has done.

I regret the proposal that Quebec opt out of Bill C-7. What I would prefer instead, is that Bill C-7 be withdrawn and that the fundamental principles adopted by Quebec by supporting the Young Offenders Act be applied throughout Canada, in every province and territory. That is what I would hope for. Unfortunately, such is not the case.

Therefore, I have no objection recognizing the distinct character of Quebec society and recognizing at the same time that the current legislation has worked well in Quebec. Our objectives, those of us who drafted this legislation, have largely been met in Quebec, but not in the other provinces.

For this reason, I rise today to congratulate Quebecers and to tell them that we respect you for the way that you have embraced the principles of prevention and rehabilitation instead of vengeance and imprisonment. I wish that these principles could be respected throughout Canada. If this cannot be done through this bill, then at least Quebec should respect them.

For this reason, I will be supporting the Bloc Quebecois amendment.

[Foreign Affairs, February 4th, 2002]

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

One week ago his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, said, with respect to the prisoners taken in Afghanistan, “They have every right, though, for a tribunal to determine whether in fact they have status as a prisoner of war or have status as an unlawful combatant. Canada stands by that determination process in accordance with international law”.

One week later the United States has still not set in place any tribunals. I want to ask the minister, will Canada refuse to turn over any prisoners to the Americans until they have given us an assurance that these tribunals will be established? Or will we show total contempt for the law under the Geneva conventions and simply let George Bush run Canadian foreign and defence policy?