Svend Robinson

[International Aid, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Afghanistan are facing the worst humanitarian crisis since Rwanda with four million to five million refugees fleeing at the borders.

Canada so far has given $6 million while Norway has contributed $80 million and Sweden has contributed $50 million. The executive director of the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace has said that Canada's lack of action is a disgrace.

The Minister for International Co-operation said earlier that we will increase our aid as soon as it is absolutely necessary. Will she increase that aid now to meet this crisis?

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

No, that is not right.

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleague, the member for Mercier, for whom I have a lot of respect. We work together on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I have to say I see a serious contradiction in her position. She says it is vital that the UN play the lead role, that there be an international court to bring those responsible for the attacks and crimes against humanity of September 11 to justice. And yet she says that the Bloc supports the motion and, worse, that the Bloc supports the American and British strikes.

She speaks of a targeted campaign. But she knows full well it is not a targeted campaign. There are a lot of innocent victims, like the UN mine clearance workers, and those killed by another bomb; they speak of computer error.

How many innocent victims are there? How long will the United States take the law into its own hands, with Britain, of course, and a few other countries, including Canada? But they are not the United Nations. The U.S. did not show the UN the evidence they showed NATO.

I therefore ask the member for Mercier how the Bloc can support American strikes when it knows they create more innocent victims and more martyrs while failing to bring the guilty to justice?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus to debate the important legislation before the House. The legislation was tabled only a couple of days ago so there has been limited opportunity to study it. My comments are made in that light.

We have been told by the government that the bill contains technical changes to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and is in effect a housekeeping bill. I urge parliamentarians to give careful scrutiny to the changes proposed in the legislation because the implications of a number of them are serious indeed.

I will not speak to all aspects of the legislation because we are debating the principle of the bill at second reading. However the member for Surrey Central raised a number of concerns that we share.

The proposed amendment to the definition of international organization would be an important change. It would give privileges and immunities to international government organizations such as APEC, the G-8 and others, even if they are not treaty bodies. We would want to study the amendment carefully in committee in terms of its implications.

I will talk about the bill's proposed amendments to the Immigration Act. At present government representatives who wish to enter Canada and who have criminal records are required to obtain a minister's permit. This provision of the Immigration Act applies whether they are world leaders or members of delegations to international conferences.

Frankly in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary it is the way the law should remain. It is unacceptable to suggest that an individual who is a government representative, part of a delegation to an international conference, or for that matter a world leader, should not be required to obey the law and submit to the same requirements with respect to ministers' permits as anyone else.

During this debate a number of my colleagues have referred to the former Russian diplomat charged with the serious offence of drunk driving, an offence that gave rise to the tragic death of a Canadian.

If that individual were part of a delegation to an international conference it would surely not be unreasonable for Canadians to have the opportunity to say no. If he were convicted of the offence he should not be entitled to enter Canada as a member of a delegation. At the very least he should be required to obtain a minister's permit to do so. In other words, it is not acceptable that ministerial permit provisions be invoked only in cases of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

There are other provisions in the legislation on which I will not comment but which I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss in committee. I am concerned about the apparent absence of consultation with provincial, territorial and municipal governments about this important legislation.

The federal government has indicated in background documents that it understands and accepts the urgency of working in partnership with provinces and municipalities to provide the most appropriate and effective security arrangements for all federally hosted international meetings.

If that is the case why did it not bring forward the bill following consultations with provincial, territorial or local jurisdictions? In the committee that studies the bill we will want to ensure these levels of government have been fully consulted and that we have heard from them before the bill passes.

In my remaining few minutes I will focus on the provisions of clause 5. This is the new clause that gives what is called statutory authority to provide protection or police powers.

The government's briefing notes say the amendment was developed in response to security issues raised by the summit of the Americas. The Department of Justice and the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada arrived at the view that the existing common law authority of the government to provide security and protection for these events should be given a statutory basis.

However clause 5 of the bill raises grave questions about the extent to which we are prepared to not only codify existing police powers in law but significantly enhance them. Many Canadians, including myself and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus, are concerned about the growing criminalization of dissent in Canada. We have seen an alarming trend toward giving more powers to the police. Bill C-35 is part of that trend.

Recently the House adopted legislation to give police and law enforcement agencies sweeping powers to break the law in the pursuit of their goals. We in the NDP opposed that legislation. We oppose the bill now before the House because it provides no clear statement as to why it is necessary to amend the law.

The government has put Bill C-35 before the House before presenting us with its package of so-called anti-terrorism legislation. I understand that it will be tabled before the House when we return in about 10 days. We will need to scrutinize it carefully because it is precisely at times like this that our most fundamental civil liberties and human rights are most vulnerable.

We all recall the invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970. While it may have been popular with the public it was recognized in retrospect to have been a significant overreaction. I am proud that it was my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus of the day, led by David Lewis, who stood and said no, that it violated the most basic and fundamental rights of Canadians. We will need to be vigilant regarding the legislative package that will be tabled in the House when we return.

Bill C-35 would give new powers to the RCMP. Clause 5 states:

(1) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under this Act--

(2) For the purpose of carrying out its responsibility...the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

That is a sweeping and dangerous extension of the powers of the RCMP. In light of the recent abuse of those powers in the context of the APEC summit we should not be prepared to grant new powers lightly to the RCMP. The report of Justice Hughes raised serious questions about the extent to which it might be necessary to codify in statutory terms the relationship between political authority and the RCMP. Bill C-35 would do nothing of the kind.

Perhaps the most serious illustration of the abuse of RCMP powers was the recent summit of the Americas. We are told the amendment before the House is a response to security issues raised by the summit. Rather than responding with a statutory extension of the powers of the RCMP we should be asking tough questions about the abuse of police power and criminalization of dissent we witnessed at the Quebec City summit of the Americas.

We in the NDP and others have joined in calling for an independent public inquiry into those abuses. Over 6,000 tear gas canisters and over 900 rubber bullets were fired.

Many of the victims were people who were engaged in peaceful, non-violent, legal protest against the assault on democracy, the environment and human rights that was taking place inside the RCMP's wall of shame.

Why on earth would the government now bring forward legislation extending new powers to the RCMP when Canadians are asking very serious questions about the abuse of the powers it currently has.

Take the case of Éric Laferrière, for example, who was hit with a rubber bullet, a rubber bullet fired at his throat. He was taking part in a peaceful protest, but was shot and hit by a bullet fired by the RCMP. He will never be able to speak again. Obviously, he will be suing the RCMP.

I have to wonder how is it that this government is prepared to grant more powers to the RCMP, when there are so many questions regarding the abuse of power during the summit of the Americas in Quebec City, last April.

We oppose this legislation and we certainly will ask tough questions when it comes to hearings on the bill. It is essential that the committees study very carefully the provisions of this legislation and call extensive witnesses from civil liberties associations.

Representatives of the Quebec Civil Liberties Union published a report which seriously criticized the conduct and actions of the RCMP, especially its use of tear gas and rubber bullets.

We will want to hear from them and others. Before we are prepared to accept these changes in legislation, we want to be convinced that it does not represent a very dangerous and unacceptable extension of the powers of the police.

Criminalization of dissent in this country is a serious concern and this legislation may very well contribute to that alarming tendency. For that reason, I rise on behalf of my colleagues in opposition to the bill which is now before the House.

[Foreign Affairs, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently stated on Larry King Live , or perhaps it was at a Liberal fundraiser, that Canada would participate in a U.S. led military strike on Afghanistan if asked.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs assure the House that parliament will be recalled next week, if necessary, to debate and vote before any Canadian troops are asked to participate in a U.S. led military strike?

[Foreign Affairs, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Richard Goldstone, who was the chief prosecutor of the UN war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, said this week that it would be tragic indeed if the major democracies were now to become outlaws in the face of the tragic events in New York City and Washington on September 11.

He called for full adherence by the nations of the world to the provisions of international humanitarian law. He stated that the sanctioning of the assassination of suspected war criminals and unlawful attacks on innocent civilians would clearly be in violation of international law. Is that the position of the Government of Canada?

[Softwood Lumber, October 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I questioned the Minister of National Defence on May 8 with respect to the position that the Government of Canada speaking on behalf of the people of Canada would take on the proposed national missile defence scheme being advocated by President George Bush.

I urged the Canadian government to get off the fence, to take a clear stand and to join with the majority of Canadians who strongly opposed this missile defence scheme. This is a dangerous new escalation of the arms race.

In the most recent poll 58% of Canadians opposed the proposed anti-ballistic missile system that is presently before the United States congress. That was in May and we are now in October and still waiting for the Canadian government to take a stand on the issue.

We all look at the impact of the terrorist attack of September 11 and ask ourselves whether this has had an impact on the American proposals for missile defence. Tragically it would appear that it has.

Among the casualties of September 11 was the democratic senators' resistance to missile defence. Prior to September 11 democrats on Capitol Hill indicated that they were prepared to trim back the $8.3 billion first year missile shield program and place tight restrictions on testing and development.

Unfortunately that opposition appears to have collapsed and the scheme is now proceeding. Those who would benefit are the global arms merchants like Boeing, Lougheed Martin, Raytheon and TRW. They are eagerly anticipating the possibility that they might get their hands on some of the $60 billion that the U.S. government intends to spend on this dangerous escalation of the arms race.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated that he was opposed to the creation of weapons in space. Canadians also share that opposition. Yet it is very clear that the U.S. missile defence scheme would lead to the creation of weapons in space. United States senior air force officials have made very clear that is their intent.

I call on the Canadian government to speak out on behalf of Canadians against this escalation of the arms race that would lead to the creation of weapons in space and lead to the possible abrogation of Start I and Start II treaties. Russian President Putin has made that very clear.

The sanctions on Pakistan have been lifted in the aftermath of September 11. That is a matter of deep concern. Prior to September 11 the United States government indicated that it was prepared to accept an escalation of China's nuclear missile program.

It is not acceptable that Canadians, along with people from around the world, should be charged with peaceful and non-violent protests. Guy Levacher from Montreal was charged in July when he protested this action peacefully and non-violently.

I appeal to the government to speak out on behalf of Canadians and tell our friends in the United States to stop this madness and instead work toward the abolition of all nuclear weapons on the planet.

[Softwood Lumber, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Churchill for her very thoughtful comments. As members know I am from the province of British Columbia. British Columbia was particularly hard hit by the punitive tariffs of 19.3%. It has been estimated that as many as 15,000 jobs may have been lost since the tariffs were imposed. We want to voice our very strong solidarity with the workers and communities that were affected.

I note that IWA-Canada has launched a national campaign, which we strongly support, to protect Canadian jobs and communities in the face of these bullying U.S. protectionist tactics.

On Wednesday this week the Interfor mill in Squamish announced that it was shutting down. That is another 170 workers out of a job. There are no transitional measures whatsoever for these folks.

The Minister of Human Resources Development indicated today that the employment insurance system was working just fine. It is not working for the airline industry and it is not working for these workers either.

Does my colleague agree it is critically important we make it clear to the U.S. government that access for Canadian manufactured wood products entering the U.S. market has to be a prerequisite to any future trade agreements between our two countries?

[Softwood Lumber, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I have two questions for the minister. The first is with respect to the issue of enforcement of the Fisheries Act, which is federal legislation. As the minister will know, under NAFTA there is a joint independent environmental panel which has come to the conclusion that there are serious problems in the enforcement by the Government of Canada of the Fisheries Act, problems that have resulted from some of the forestry practices and their impact on salmon bearing streams. That is a preliminary finding by the environmental tribunal under NAFTA. I will ask the minister what action the federal government is taking to respond to this very serious concern.

Second, I will ask the minister the same question that I asked the member for Vancouver Island North. That is with respect to an assurance from the government that whatever agreement is ultimately signed, it will not involve any increased export of raw logs from crown lands or undermine Canada's ability to manage its forests or wood industry in the interests of Canadians.

[Softwood Lumber, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the member for Vancouver Island North what his position and the position of the Alliance is with respect to the issue of raw log exports.

Many Canadians, certainly British Columbians, are deeply concerned about the level of raw log exports and are calling for more value added in the British Columbia forest industry. I wonder if the Alliance member would agree that we must resist any suggestion of increased export of raw logs from crown lands and in fact should be doing whatever we can to end the export of raw logs and ensure that we process those logs and create jobs in Canada.