Wendy Lill

[Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, between 1986 and 1995 Revenue Canada was lax in documenting people claiming the disability tax credit. Because of its screw-ups, 106,000 vulnerable Canadians received a form letter telling them to reapply for their credit or be cut off, and 65,000 more letters still have to go out.

Why is the government picking on the most vulnerable? Will the government now tell these people the review is on hold and compensate them for costs accrued to reapply for the DTC? Will it commit to real consultations with disability groups before conducting a new review of the DTC?

[Sports, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I join with all Canadians in congratulating Kirk Johnson of North Preston on his upcoming match for the world boxing heavyweight championship.

Kirk Johnson, 29, is the son of Violet and Gary Johnson of North Preston and the first heavyweight boxing champion from his community. He attended Nelson Wynder and Ross Road schools, Cole Harbour High and St. Mary's University. Kirk was introduced to boxing by his father, a long time boxing coach, who believed the sport was a way to keep young people out of trouble. His dad said of him “Kirk has a big imagination. He would watch Ali on TV and do the Ali shuffle. He was always a good imitator of the best. He is a true leader”.

Kirk's dedication, hard work and integrity to the sport of boxing provides a role model for all young people. Undefeated after 33 professional fights Johnson has an outstanding record in boxing at an international level.

On behalf of the House I want to tell Kirk that we are proud of him and thank him in advance for his performance on behalf of the people of North Preston and Canada. We wish him good luck and Godspeed.

[Health, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada plans to close the Dartmouth Analytical Service Laboratory in Dartmouth. The new health minister knows full well the importance of physical and expert evidence in the prosecution of drug cases and the importance of quick turnaround time for testing in a major port like Halifax where cargoes are held until tests are complete. The police say we need the local labs and all levels of government say we need our labs.

Will she keep this lab open so police and prosecutors in Atlantic Canada have timely access to the experts and evidence they need?

[The Media, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, diverse voices across Canada are being silenced. Southam journalists are condemning CanWest Global for narrowing debate and corrupting both news coverage and commentary to suit corporate interests. CanWest's owners now dictate editorial policy, control TV commentators and tell Aislin what cartoons will be published.

At the same time CBC is cutting again. Saturday radio shows like The House , Basic Black and DNTO are on the chopping block while CBC management locks out its technicians because they want meal breaks on a 12 hour shift.

The government has to bear responsibility for silencing these voices. The cabinet put its seal of approval on the Aspers' media empire a few weeks ago when it renewed its licence. This week's budget leaves the CBC a couple of hundred million short of what it had before the cuts of the last decade.

Our democracy can only survive if there is a free exchange of many views in our newspapers and over our airwaves. Without it, all the security in the world will not make one whit of difference.

[Auditor General's Report, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the auditor general reported to the House that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is routinely ignoring the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Her report examined 26 files requiring environmental assessments. It found that seven of them were approved prior to the completion of the assessments, seven more had assessments done calling for follow up action that never took place and twelve were approved without condition that the recommendations of the assessment be enforced.

The auditor general called this a worrisome trend, citing the case of a hotel in P.E.I. where an environmental protection plan for the construction period was a requirement of the environmental assessment. The agency blatantly ignored this requirement and the hotel was built without a plan to protect the fragile environment.

Atlantic Canadians, who saw the effects of the collapse of the cod fishery, know very well the importance of environmental protection. It is shameful that ACOA would become one of the most egregious violators of environmental laws.

[Employment Equity Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the comments by the member across the way with regard to employment equity from some private corporations such as Blockbuster. I actually have an example with Blockbuster which did not work out quite as well in my own community.

A young woman in her early twenties with a mental disability was volunteering with Blockbuster. The volunteer activity had to stop because the corporation was concerned with liability.

I am very interested in the program the member talked about with Blockbuster. It is the same company but there seems to be a great deal of leeway in terms of individual management as to whether or not the company is going to work with persons with disabilities, give them salaries, allow them to work on a volunteer basis, or simply say the company is not going to take any responsibility whatsoever for people in the community who have intellectual disabilities.

Perhaps the member could comment on that real difficulty which my constituents are experiencing in their community.

[Disabled Persons Day, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today we mark International Day for Disabled Persons with a theme of “Full Participation and Equality”.

The Canadian Labour Congress and the International Labour Organization have done pioneering work to help people with disabilities.

Today the CLC launched a national education campaign to stop discrimination at work. The ILO has developed an international code of practice to accommodate current and potential employees with disabilities in the workplace.

Our federal government, however, has failing grades in the duty to accommodate our citizens with disabilities. We have seen cuts to eligibility to CPP, cuts to the Canada assistance plan, cuts to acceptable housing, cuts to training programs and recently 90,000 people have been forced to reapply for the disability tax credit.

Today I call on the government to finally bring in adequate income support, remove physical and policy barriers and create real employment opportunities for the millions of Canadians who live with disabilities. Equal citizenship now.

[Broadcasting Act, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-7, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act to permit the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, to make regulations to establish criteria for the awarding of costs to interveners in broadcasting proceedings as it currently has the power to award costs in telecommunications cases.

I will start by thanking both Senator Finestone and the hon. member for Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia for getting this important bill before us today. The bill would change the Broadcasting Act so the CRTC could award costs to third party interveners in broadcasting proceedings.

The idea is not radical. It is done all the time in CRTC proceedings under the Telecommunications Act. The world would not end for our telephone companies. Adopting the bill would be no real threat to our private broadcasters.

I have been my party's critic for the CRTC for four years now. The need for the bill is obvious to me and should be obvious to others as well.

I will start by reading into the record the comments of the chair of the CRTC to the heritage committee last week as part of our study into Canadian broadcasting. Mr. Colville said:

Our job is a daily delicate balance of competing vested interests...Then there is the challenge of balancing those big strong national players and the local focus that one wants to have in Winnipeg or Halifax, where I come from. So I think it's going to be a challenge as to how best we can draw that balance.

I am pleased the chair of the CRTC is concerned about balance. The reason I am so pleased to support the bill is that our system needs balance and currently lacks it. One way to regain balance is to give more voices the ability to be effectively represented at public hearings.

The current public hearing process used by the commission is problematic. The public interest seems to be getting lost. Interests with deep pockets get preferential access to the system. This makes it impossible for the public to have meaningful input.

It is easy for well paid broadcast lawyers to navigate the shoals of the CRTC. However for people approaching their regulator because they are concerned about their culture, their cable service or their community channel the process is confusing and inaccessible.

Another impediment to the public is the language used by the CRTC. It is fair to say the CRTC's use of words is close to impenetrable.

Last weekend I was in Winnipeg attending my party's successful national convention. One of the speakers was Lorne Calvert, the premier of Saskatchewan. He related to delegates a Tommy Douglas story about language in government.

After one of his victorious elections Tommy returned to his office in Regina to meet with his senior bureaucrats. He pulled a constituent's letter from his pocket, put it on the table and passed it around. The letter simply said “The buggers broke my fence”. Tommy looked at the stunned officials. He said “Okay, let me explain this to you. The noun is buggers, the verb is broke and the object is fence. Why can't any of you write like this?”

Tommy Douglas was talking about clarity of writing in government, something not generally found at the CRTC. The CRTC is always referring people to one or another of its decisions, all of which are numbered, all of which are filed and none of which are understood. Its dictionary seems to lack words like watch, write, rules, TV station, evening, person or cable company. Instead it seems to rely on its own language code which consists of words like distributor, licensee, undertaking, designated viewing times and priority programming.

Last week the CRTC denied the request of a small Newmarket radio station for a programming change so it could compete with the big market stations in nearby Toronto. The decision said:

In view of the foregoing, the Commission is satisfied that the licensee does not need additional flexibility with respect to the level of hits it broadcasts to successfully program the “Oldies Dancing” format described in its application. Accordingly, it remains a condition of licence for CKDX-FM that the licensee broadcast, in any broadcast week, less than 50% hit material as defined in Public Notice CRTC 1997-42, as amended by Circular No. 445 dated 14 August 2001--

And so on and so on.

This is CRTC code language. In effect the CRTC is saying no. It is saying it agrees with the small station's big competitors who were at the hearing with their bank of lawyers. The saddest part is that the CRTC claims to have improved its language due to public complaints. That seems to be the way with the CRTC. Big broadcasters get their way while small players are overwhelmed by the process.

Another recent example was in television. The CRTC gave CanWest Global a seven year licence renewal and policy approval for cross media ownership even though the commission's own decision stated:

Global confirmed that CIII-TV, a station that serves an audience across Ontario, was broadcasting an average of 13 hours per week of regional news. This level is below the 17.5 hours per week of regional news to which the licensee committed for the current term of licence.

Was CanWest Global punished? No, it was rewarded. If one is Global one can break the rules and get a seven year renewal.

Vision TV recently applied for a similar seven year licence. Vision is a small, non-profit, multi-faith broadcaster. It does not have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on the process. It has no bank of lawyers and has admitted to poor record keeping regarding its Canadian content logs. The CRTC came down hard on Vision TV. It granted it a limited 33 month renewal with harsh restrictions.

The rules seem to be that only big players get their way. Bill S-7 would help change this. It would allow a countervailing opinion to be heard at the hearing table, one that has the resources to penetrate the process and the language.

Until we can get cabinet to change the process so it is understandable and accessible Bill S-7 is the next best thing. In the interest of the public and the future of Canadian broadcasting I am pleased to support the bill.

[Revenue Canada, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I asked this question last week but I got no response. It concerns the 90,000 vulnerable Canadians who recently received a letter from Revenue Canada telling them to reapply for the disability tax credit.

It costs many between $30 and $120 to get a doctor to agree that they are still legally blind or that they still have Down's syndrome. This is harassment. First, it makes the CPP disability program more restrictive and now it goes after those who get the tax credit.

Why is the government picking on the vulnerable? Will it order these harassing letters to be withdrawn? Will it offer the 90,000 Canadians--

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about Bill C-36, and I am honoured to speak to it tonight.

I believe the legislation in its present form is disturbing and unless some changes are made we in the New Democratic Party will not be able to live with it. We believe the bill has to be changed. It is currently anti-democratic. It fails the basic test of protecting our civil liberties from the state. We are a country with a proud tradition of fighting for democracy.

I came here today from a taping in a studio where I taped a message to our armed forces serving overseas. I represent many members of the armed forces in my community.

I find it ironic that we have thousands of people who have gone overseas to protect democracy and the values we care about, but right here we are looking at some pretty scary legislation which I think will jeopardize the things they are fighting for.

Last week, along with my leader, I met with women from the Muslim community in Halifax and Dartmouth and we heard their real fear of this bill. Many of them came to Canada because they believed that our democratic institutions would protect them from oppressionn but Bill C-36 makes them afraid to answer their doors. Once again it may be the police taking them away because of the ethnicity of their names.

I have also been with teachers opposed to the bill because of its attack on our civil liberties. I have met with immigrant service organizations that tell me of the fear of their clients.

The bill goes way too far, way too fast. I would like to talk about some of the specific concerns we have. I will start with the sunset clause.

One of the ideas touted by numerous witnesses was the idea of an American style sunset clause. This would have the effect of forcing the government to reintroduce, debate and amend the legislation for it to take effect for another period of time. A three year time limit affecting different aspects of the legislation was suggested by numerous witnesses.

The NDP proposed an amendment that would have addressed those concerns. However, the government had already decided that it would only include a watered down sunset clause by which the House and the Senate would vote after five years for a motion to extend the investigative hearing and preventative arrest sections, two of the more controversial measures in the bill. Though this is better than no clause at all, it is not a sunset clause in the true sense. Rather than having to introduce and re-examine legislation, this would simply require the government to tell its members and senators to vote an extension of that which currently exists in Bill C-36.

There is much more in Bill C-36 that should have been sunsetted and properly so. The definition of “terrorist activity” would have been a good candidate for sunsetting, as well as provisions extending powers of surveillance and wiretapping given to Canadian security agencies, along with new ministerial permits allowing the attorney general to exempt information from the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

The only significant amendment made to these final sections was to put a 15 year limit on the life of these certificates as well as to provide for a limited judicial oversight. Though this is a minor improvement, it in no way addresses our concerns about the power concentrated in the hands of the attorney general.

When it comes to the definition of terrorism in the bill, we have substantial concerns. Though we proposed amendments to improve this section, none were accepted and amendments recommended by witnesses, which would have gone a long way toward addressing our concerns, were also rejected. Our amendments would have included the words “extreme terror and intimidation” as motivations for terrorist offences, to make it clear that only acts with those motivations could be considered terrorist acts.

Second, we proposed the exclusion of threats to economic security in that section.

Third, we proposed removing the section that would include the disruption of essential services as a terrorist act.

Finally, we proposed that the government amend the same section to clarify that no acts involving peaceful, civil disobedience could be considered terrorist acts.

We also have concerns with the wiretapping and surveillance provisions. Provisions which, among other things, allow the communications security establishment to monitor communications in which Canadians are a party as well as allowing Canadian security agencies more latitude in seeking and using various surveillance tools are still part of the legislation, unamended and unsunsetted.

We have a great deal of concern about the issue of listed entities. Some important amendments have been put forward by members of the Conservative Party on the issue. We found the section around listed entities to be worrisome. A listed entity has its assets frozen and confiscated. Though there is an appeal mechanism for a listed entity, an appeal is only possible once an entity has already had its assets frozen. Numerous charitable and religious groups are very concerned about this section because the freezing would be tantamount to a death sentence.

In the media we have heard from members of the Somalian Canadian community who see the bill as an attempt to criminalize their attempts to support their parents, brothers and children in Somalia.

We proposed two amendments to this section but none was accepted. We also supported two amendments from the member for Calgary Centre. One would report the seizing of assets and one would reverse the legal onus around the listing of entities, which used to be called labelling of a terrorist group, so that there is some presumption of innocence.

The idea that the government suggests that a person is guilty without trial simply based on a secret accusation from the intelligence community is terrifying. The process allows CSIS to legalize witch hunts.

The Minister of Justice did not listen to the justice committee or to the witnesses who appeared before it. The amendments that were introduced did not adequately address our key concerns.

The definition of terrorist activity is overly broad in the bill. The sunset clause is limited in what it covers. It is incomplete in what it requires and amounts in the end to a 10 year sunset on two provisions of the bill.

Ministerial certificates are still part of the bill and the government has done nothing to address the concerns of charitable and cultural organizations, as well as business that could find themselves unfairly listed. The amendments are at best superficial.

We want to see amendments to the legislation that would make it absolutely clear that this new law cannot be used or abused against Canadians who participate in demonstrations, strikes or other customary forms of political or institutional dissent, or to create big loopholes in our privacy and freedom of information laws. The limited amendments from the government have left the door open for all of these things.

Why should the government be trusted with new powers, which it may use to distinguish between real terrorists and non-terrorists, if at the moment it cannot seem to distinguish between peaceful protesters and violent protesters? If the minister is concerned about the reputation that the government has developed, one would assume that she would make a much more diligent effort to try to clear up this very important issue.

About 10 days ago there were demonstrations less than a kilometre away from the House against the G20, the world bank and the international monetary fund. Television crews caught young protesters breaking windows and spray-painting public signs. This was after scenes of violence at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City and at the APEC conference in Vancouver.

Members should not get me wrong. I oppose vandalism, even of McDonald's, but I also oppose any law that would equate their actions with the evil events of September 11.

I am frankly suspicious of the government, and the tens of thousands of peaceful protesters are also suspicious of the increasing use of police force against demonstrations. The stubbornness of the government in refusing reasonable amendments in this historic legislation gives credence to the suspicions that we have.

I believe in a democratic Canada. I take the civil liberties given in our charter very seriously. I beg that we now take the time and make the effort to produce a piece of legislation that protects our security while defending our civil liberties in this anxious and difficult time.